ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Tax Avoidance

Katy Clark: What proposals her Department has to tackle tax avoidance by multinational companies operating in developing countries.

Therese Coffey: What steps she is taking to help developing countries improve their tax systems.

Justine Greening: The UK Government are committed to ensuring that developing countries have the ability to collect the tax that they are owed. The UK is using our G8 presidency to promote tax transparency, tackle tax avoidance and ensure tax compliance.

Katy Clark: The Secretary of State will be aware that developing countries lose more than £160 billion each year through tax avoidance, more than one and a half times what they receive in aid. What is she doing to ensure that we get country-by-country reporting so that we see how much those multinationals are taking from developing countries?

Justine Greening: Addressing tax avoidance and encouraging tax compliance will be one of the key elements of the G8 agenda, and transparency sits alongside that. We will look at how we can obtain more transparency, including sectoral transparency through measures such as the extractive industries transparency initiative. All those measures together have the potential to ensure that we can help developing countries to collect the tax they are owed.

Therese Coffey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that developing countries will be able to end their dependence on aid only if they can raise enough revenues through the tax system?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to have sustainable development and developing countries are to have the tax revenues to fund and invest in their own public services, we need a thriving economy that creates those revenues. That is why economic development is such a key part of what my Department is now focusing on. Along with Her Majesty’s Revenue
	and Customs, we are investing to ensure that developing countries have the tax expertise they need to collect the taxes that are due.

Anas Sarwar: I back the call from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for country-by-country reporting by all multinational companies. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that no money from DFID goes to any organisation or company that is not fully tax transparent?

Justine Greening: We are very clear that we want companies to behave responsibly across the board, including on tax, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is such due diligence. We cannot simply ignore those problems, and if we are to shape private sector investment in the developing world so that it can help drive development, as I think we should, we will have to engage with the private sector more in the future than we have in the past.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State will know that the OECD has been charged with coming up with a scheme to tackle base erosion and profit shifting and to consider corporate taxation. Last week in a meeting with the organisation it confirmed to me that it is working to a timetable of just two years. Does she agree with that timetable, or does she agree with me that it is an over optimistic timetable for trying to get a multilateral convention to replace 3,000 tax treaties?

Justine Greening: My right hon. Friend is right that the timetable is ambitious and that is why we need to put the political momentum behind it that the G8 meeting can bring. The work that the OECD is doing has been commissioned by the G20 and it shows that if we are to reach a sustainable solution, leading economies and world leaders must come together. That is precisely why we have put the subject on our G8 agenda.

Ivan Lewis: The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the main objective of this weekend’s summit on tax and transparency and next week’s G8 meeting is for G8 countries to put their houses in order. That would strengthen the moral authority of the G8 and send a strong message to the rest of the world that the time has come to get serious about tax dodging. Will the Secretary of State ask the Chancellor today to bolster the Prime Minister’s moral authority and undertake an urgent review of the changes he made to the UK’s controlled foreign company rules, which are estimated to have cost developing countries £4 billion in lost tax revenue?

Justine Greening: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have asked me about the success of the G8 event on nutrition we held last Saturday, which saw huge progress on providing funding for that issue. Let me answer the question he has asked, however. I reassure him that we are taking a structured approach to the discussions at the G8. We are looking at addressing tax avoidance—in other words, dealing with the problem. We are looking at developing better approaches to tax evasion—in other words, once the problems happen we need to ensure that we can sort them out. We are also looking at how we can ensure that developing countries,
	once they have made progress, are in a position to collect tax. Our Government has put the question on the agenda and I think the hon. Gentleman should congratulate us on that.

Ivan Lewis: I do not know about tax dodging but the Secretary of State is getting a reputation for question dodging—we will try this one, Mr Speaker. The Government have identified the public registration of beneficial company owners as one of their top priorities for the G8. There can be no excuse for this basic information about company directors being shrouded in secrecy. Does that remain the Government’s priority? Will she confirm that if they are unable to secure agreement, the UK will take unilateral steps on the issue of public registration?

Justine Greening: We have made beneficial ownership one of the key elements of our G8 agenda, and it is right to do so. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman’s Government particularly pushing on the issue during their 13 years in office. I can assure him that the best way to make a difference for developing countries is to get international agreement. That is what they want and that is why we are trying to get it.

Malcolm Bruce: In the light of the Select Committee on International Development’s recent report, and following the election, will the Secretary of State engage with the Government of Pakistan to ensure that Ministers, MPs and the leaders of the community there pay their fair share of taxes to match the contribution that British development aid is making to Pakistan?

Justine Greening: We have a question on the Order Paper later about Pakistan, Mr Speaker. I have already spoken with Ministers in the Pakistani Government, and the Committee’s report was right to highlight this issue.

Syria

John Robertson: What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

Justine Greening: The humanitarian situation in Syria has now reached catastrophic proportions. More than 80,000 people have been killed—that is nearly 1,000 a month—6.8 million are in need, including at least 4.25 million internally displaced persons, half of whom are children, and a further 1.6 million refugees are in the region, of whom 75% are women and children. UK support is providing food, health care, water and shelter for refugees, both inside and outside Syria.

John Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, and I am pleased to see that she is well up with what is happening. She will also be well up with what is being done by the UN commission of inquiry, which mentioned the killing of 13 children because of lack of food and medication. Will she confirm that the Government will press for an agreement at the G8 summit on improving humanitarian access for the estimated 4 million people who need it in Syria today?

Justine Greening: I am sure we will be raising those issues at the G8, as I did when I was at the UN a couple of weeks ago. It is simply unacceptable that the Syrian Government continue to refuse to allow humanitarian deliveries across the border from Turkey, and we need all sides in this conflict to agree to give unfettered access to humanitarian agencies and to do that free from violence.

Angela Watkinson: The number of refugees coming across the border from Syria into Turkey is way beyond Turkey’s ability to provide for them. Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with her counterparts in Turkey, the European Union or the wider international community on how these refugees might be catered for?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to recognise the impact that refugees are having on several countries in the region. Some 370,000-plus refugees have arrived in Turkey, and we have spoken with the Turkish Government about what we can do to provide support. They have played a leading role in providing humanitarian support to those refugees, and that should be acknowledged, too.

Tom Clarke: In addition to the information that the right hon. Lady has just given the House, is she aware that World Vision estimates that 1.5 million people are displaced? Does she agree that in the event of any removal of arms embargoes, there will be no less emphasis on the crucial need for humanitarian aid?

Justine Greening: I think I can absolutely reassure the right hon. Gentleman on that point. My Department is looking at what needs to happen in not only the immediate time frame, but the far longer term. We know that more than half the hospitals in Syria have been damaged, and that the water and sanitation systems are essentially no longer working. There needs to be not only a short-term plan to examine humanitarian needs in all circumstances—he is right about that—but a longer-term plan to examine what Syria’s needs will be afterwards.

Philip Hollobone: With the Council for European Palestinian Relations, I recently visited Palestinian refugees in Lebanon who had fled from Syria. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is doing all that it can to help those people, who are living in miserable conditions?

Justine Greening: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because that important aspect of the crisis is often not recognised. We have provided £5 million to UNRWA particularly to support its work with Palestinian refugees. That will support more than 350,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria, and will go on food parcels and other relief items.

Rushanara Ali: I wish to declare an interest: I have just returned from a visit to Lebanon, courtesy of World Vision, on which I witnessed at first hand the impact of the heavy influx of Syrian refugees on that country. The number of refugees
	in Lebanon has reached half a million and is set to reach 1 million by Christmas. Last week, the UN appealed for £3.2 billion to deal with the humanitarian emergency. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much the UK Government will contribute to this appeal?

Justine Greening: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We are looking now at what we can do to continue playing a leading role in providing humanitarian support, but I think that all Members of the House would agree that we need to put pressure on other countries in the region, and the international community more broadly, to step up to the plate and provide support, and we need to make sure that they fulfil commitments that they have already made.

Official Development Assistance

Stephen Doughty: When the Government plan to bring forward legislative proposals to enshrine in law their commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance.

Alan Duncan: This Government will be the first in the G8 to reach 0.7%, and we are doing so this year.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister wants us to believe the Government’s 0.7% aid promise, but first we find no Bill in the Queen’s Speech, and secondly we see a massive underspend in the Department in the last few months of last year. Who made the decisions to omit the Bill and to underspend? Was it the Secretary of State, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, or the Prime Minister?

Alan Duncan: Very nice try, but there is not a massive underspend. Previous mentions in the Queen’s Speech were about the objective of meeting the target, and if the hon. Gentleman wants the proof to be in the pudding, that is exactly what we are doing.

Peter Bone: Would the excellent Minister agree with me that we should not set targets for overseas aid? We should give what is required.

Alan Duncan: We are doing both, because as the United Nations’ objective of 0.7% established, the continuity that comes from countries meeting it ensures that aid is delivered in the best possible way, and that is why the objective is so important for the poorest people in the world, whom we are all trying to help.

Gregory Campbell: Now that we are the first of the G8 nations to reach 0.7%, perhaps the Prime Minister will make that declaration in the magnificent surroundings of County Fermanagh next week. When he has done that, will he ensure that we target that aid, that it is free from corruption, that people can see that there is a point behind the aid, and that it goes to those most in need?

Alan Duncan: I am confident that not only would the Prime Minister enjoy making such a commitment, but could do so truthfully and accurately, because my right
	hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and indeed all of us in the Department for International Development, ensure that the money that we spend on behalf of taxpayers goes to people in need, and not into the pockets of anyone who might be corrupt.

Tobias Ellwood: May I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to look at the Ministry of Defence’s stabilisation activities, such as mine clearance, police training in Afghanistan, and the replacement of the Kajaki dam turbine? Those activities are not claimed as going towards the ODA target of 0.7%; if they were, I believe that we would be exceeding it.

Alan Duncan: One of the great achievements of this Government is the great co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and DFID, under the auspices of the National Security Council. When it comes to spending, we work very closely with those two Departments, but we must stick within the OECD rules that govern the definition of official development assistance.

Keith Vaz: How much of that percentage will be made available to the people of Yemen? Only yesterday, Jamal Benomar, the UN special representative, said that 1 million children were dying from malnutrition there. How can we save those children?

Alan Duncan: Our focus on Yemen is acute, and I take charge of that personally. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, one of the comments at the nutrition event at the weekend, attended by Ministers from Yemen, was that more than half of their children under five are stunted. We have to focus on that need, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that through our programmes in Yemen, that is exactly what we are doing.

Spending Priorities

Alun Cairns: What her Department’s spending priorities are for 2012-13.

Justine Greening: In 2012-13, the Department focused its investment on poverty reduction through improving the lives of girls and women, boosting economic development and creating jobs, building open societies and institutions, combating climate change, responding to humanitarian emergencies, and building peaceful states and societies.

Alun Cairns: The Government have rightly prioritised money for some of the most deprived people around the globe, but can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the Government will also prioritise the ungoverned states in the conflict-affected areas around the world?

Justine Greening: I can; 30% of our bilateral aid by 2014-15 will be invested in precisely those states. When the multilateral investment is added, that comes to about half the Department’s budget.

Mark Lazarowicz: As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Nutrition for Growth event in London last weekend highlighted the importance of investing in nutrition. The Secretary of State will also know that in the countries with which DFID has a bilateral relationship, only about half have an investment in nutrition programme. Will the Department be expanding its commitment to invest in nutrition in developing countries?

Justine Greening: We made our own commitments, alongside those of many other countries, last Saturday. In total that brought in $4.1 billion of investment between now and 2020, and we will be looking to work with developing countries to develop nutrition plans where there are none, but interestingly, last Saturday we saw many countries with existing plans in which they are already investing.

Martin Horwood: In the year when we will achieve the historic 0.7% target, does the Secretary of State agree that her Department can get more bang for its development bucks by also championing development right across Government—for instance, with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, on tackling the issue of modern-day slavery in the business supply chain?

Justine Greening: We need to make sure that all Departments are pulling in the same direction on this agenda, as I am trying to do. The hon. Gentleman is right. Modern-day slavery is a disgrace and my Department will look at what role we can play in relation to human trafficking.

Pakistan

Andrew Selous: What recent contact she has had with the Pakistani Government about UK aid.

Justine Greening: Following Pakistan’s historic elections on 11 May, I have spoken with incoming Government Ministers about their priorities, as have my officials. The federal and provincial governments made clear manifesto commitments to reform and now have a clear democratic mandate. The people of Pakistan have put their faith in democracy and they now want to see Governments delivering on those promises.

Andrew Selous: Tax collection is very weak in Pakistan, with apparently 70% of its MPs not even filing a tax return. Given that Pakistan promised back in 2008 to close its tax loopholes as a condition of an International Monetary Fund loan, why should we believe Pakistan on this occasion that it will be better at collecting the taxes due to it?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, as the International Development Committee did. The incoming Government have a clear-cut manifesto commitment to increase the proportion of GDP from tax collected. We support that, and we hope and expect that they will get on with it.

Jim Shannon: There have been reports from Pakistan of Christian groups who say they have not had access to the aid coming from the United
	Kingdom Government. What steps have the Government taken to address that issue directly with the Pakistani Government to ensure that Christian groups get the aid that they should get?

Justine Greening: We intend to make sure that our aid reaches all the people who need it, irrespective of ethnic background or anything else. We raised all such issues with the Pakistani Government in the past and will continue to do so with the new Government, now that they are in place. I hope I can do that when I visit Pakistan in the coming weeks.

West Bank

David Ward: What research her Department has undertaken into the humanitarian effects of the occupation of the west bank.

Alan Duncan: We are deeply concerned by the impact of the occupation on the lives of Palestinians in the west bank. DFID assesses this constantly. Reports from the UN and others clearly document poverty, displacement, constrained growth and the demolition this year alone of 247 Palestinian structures.

David Ward: Those who have been to the west bank and to Gaza will be frustrated constantly to see international aid used to pay for buildings which are promptly knocked down by the Israeli regime. Is the Minister aware that according to figures in the United Nations “Humanitarian Monitor” monthly report for April, there was a 30% rise in the number of Palestinians displaced by house demolitions, with a total of 46 structures demolished by the Israeli army, which included five paid for by international donors?

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to the hon. Member, but we need to have time for the answer.

Alan Duncan: The Government share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the nature and scale of the demolitions. I am pleased to say, however, that we have contributed to the construction of a number of schools in Gaza, where we hope children will be educated without their premises ever being demolished.

Topical Questions

Chris Evans: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: Since the last International Development questions, I have attended the high-level panel meeting in New York, met the CBI to discuss how DFID can work with business on development and attended the G8 social impact forum last Thursday. You, Mr Speaker, will recall the parliamentary reception we held last weekend in advance of the G8 Nutrition for Growth event, where we secured commitments of up to £2.7 billion to tackle under-nutrition between now and 2020.

Mr Speaker: Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place. The Secretary of State and Members are addressing extremely important matters, and they should be discussed in an air of respect and consideration.

Chris Evans: Last year the Secretary of State said that her top priority was women and girls. What steps is she taking to tackle violence against women and girls, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited that region comparatively recently. We are looking at how we can scale up our work on tackling violence against women and girls. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are also working hand in hand with the Foreign Office on tackling violence against women and girls in conflict.

Neil Carmichael: In recognition of her achievement in securing the 0.7% of gross domestic product target, will the Secretary of State indicate just how many of her investments are leading to improved trade opportunities for the United Kingdom?

Justine Greening: We invest around £1 billion in wealth-creating projects, but I would like us to do more in the area of economic development. We need only look at the increase in our exports to China to see how other countries developing their economies will ultimately benefit us, too.

Diana Johnson: Following the excellent WaterAid campaign on world water day earlier this year, what progress has the Secretary of State made on ensuring that access to clean water and sanitation remains a central part of the post-2015 development goals?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady will have been as pleased as I was to see that sanitation and water feature strongly in the high-level panel’s report passed to the UN Secretary-General a couple of weeks ago. It is really important that we keep that proposed target, which is precisely what the Government will be pressing for.

Therese Coffey: May I commend the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for last Saturday’s Nutrition for Growth summit, which showed that improving nutrition is not only about state aid, but about bringing the private sector and philanthropists together to solve the problem of over 1 billion people going hungry?

Justine Greening: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it shows that if we are to make a real difference, we need ultimately to see Governments working in partnership with business and encouraging responsible investment. If we can work together and bring in the best science, we will have a real chance of tackling under-nutrition.

Jim McGovern: A member of my staff, Lee Butcher, recently visited Palestine. He was shocked and stunned to see how
	Palestinians are treated by the Israelis, for example having no water for weeks on end. What can the Government do to help those Palestinians who are suffering such pain?

Alan Duncan: We put as much pressure and argument as we can to improve the condition of Palestinians in Area C, and we very much hope that such issues will be addressed in the peace process, which we wish every success, as it continues over the next few weeks.

Rehman Chishti: What discussions have been had with the Government of Pakistan to tackle the issues of population growth, lack of family planning and high maternity deaths?

Justine Greening: This Government have focused on family planning; indeed, we hosted a conference on it last year. As regards Pakistan, we have a successful programme in relation to health workers. Of course, the ultimate way to tackle the issues that my hon. Friend talks about is through education. If girls stay in school longer, they get married later and have fewer children and, indeed, healthier children.

Michael McCann: On a recent delegation to the west bank, we met President Abbas, who confirmed that the Palestinian Authority pays the families of convicted criminals a salary dependent on the length of time they spend in prison. Since DFID provides direct budget support which is indivisible from the Palestinian Authority’s funds, will the Minister explain and justify how British taxpayers’ money can be spent on paying criminals?

Alan Duncan: We have dealt with this issue on many occasions in written and oral parliamentary questions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that British funding is ring-fenced and does not in any way go to purposes of that sort.

Richard Graham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be possible to link our large aid presence in the British embassy in Jakarta more effectively with our trade presence in order to promote new energy solutions like the first biodiesel plant in the country from Gloucestershire’s Green Fuels?

Justine Greening: That sounds like a very sensible thought. We work closely with UK Trade & Investment in Whitehall, and I would like that to happen more on the ground in developing countries such as Indonesia.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Alex Cunningham: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 June.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Alex Cunningham: Because of this Government’s incompetent management of the NHS, 256,000 patients were forced to wait in the back of ambulances because accident and emergency departments could not admit them. Why does the Prime Minister think that the best way to deal with this is to fine hospitals £90 million for his Government’s failure?

David Cameron: This Government are putting £12.7 billion extra into the NHS—money that would be cut by Labour. Because of that extra money and because of the reforms, waiting times for in-patients and out-patients are both down, hospital-acquired infections are right down, and mixed-sex wards have almost been abolished in our NHS. That is a record we can be proud of.

Graham Stuart: Surely the shadow Chancellor is right when he says that the Labour party will look ridiculous if it refuses to give the people a say on our future in Europe. Can my right hon. Friend confirm the Conservative party’s commitment to renegotiation and a referendum and can he explain why a Labour leader so weak that he can resist the shadow Chancellor on nothing else refuses to do what the shadow Chancellor says on the one occasion that he is right?

David Cameron: On behalf of the whole House, may I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House of Commons? It is good to see him making such a strong recovery and being in such strong voice as well. He makes a very important point. On this side of the House, within this party, we are committed to renegotiation and an in/out referendum before the end of 2017, but there has been a staggering silence from Labour Members. Apparently half the shadow Cabinet support a referendum and the other half do not. Well, they will have their chance on 5 July—they can turn up and vote for a referendum in the United Kingdom.

Edward Miliband: On Syria, the Prime Minister has our support to use the G8 in the coming week to push all members to provide humanitarian assistance to alleviate the terrible crisis that is happening there. On the arms embargo and supplying weapons to the rebels, he said last week:
	“If we help to tip the balance in that way, there is a greater chance of political transition succeeding.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1239.]
	Given that Russia seems ready to supply more weapons to Syria, does he think it is in any sense realistic for a strategy of tipping the balance to work?

David Cameron: First of all, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He is absolutely right. We should use the G8 to try to bring pressure on all sides to bring about what we all want in this House, which is a peace conference, a peace process, and the move towards a transitional Government in Syria. I am delighted to tell the House that, in advance of the G8, President Putin will be coming for meetings in Downing street on Sunday, when we can discuss this. Because we
	have recognised that the Syrian national opposition are legitimate spokespeople for the Syrian people, it is important that we help them, give them technical assistance, give them training, and give them advice and assistance. We are doing all those things, and I think, yes, that that does help to tip the balance to make sure that President Assad can see that he cannot win this by military means alone and that negotiations should take place for a transitional Government.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, but my question was specifically on the lifting of the arms embargo and the supply of weapons to the Syrian rebels.
	Last week, the Prime Minister also told the House that
	“there are clear safeguards to ensure that any such equipment would be supplied only for the protection of civilians”.—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1234.]
	Will he tell us what those safeguards are and how in Syria they would be enforced?

David Cameron: First, let me say again that the point about lifting the arms embargo, which applied originally to both the regime and the official Syrian opposition, is to send a very clear message about our intentions and our views to President Assad, but we have not made a decision to supply the Syrian opposition with weapons. As I have said, we are giving them assistance, advice and technical help.
	To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s second question, we have systems in place—of course we do—to make sure that that sort of non-lethal equipment, such as transport, does not get into the wrong hands.

Edward Miliband: Two things: first, I think we all support the idea that we should focus on the peace conference, Geneva II, and on making it happen, but the problem is that the Government have put their energy into the lifting of the arms embargo, not the peace conference.
	Secondly, I quoted the Prime Minister’s words not about non-lethal equipment, but about the supply of lethal equipment. He gave an assurance to this House that, in the circumstances of supplying lethal equipment, there would be end-use safeguards. My question was what those safeguards would be, but I did not hear an answer. Perhaps when he next gets up he will tell us.
	When the Prime Minister replies, will he also confirm that if he takes a decision to arm the rebels in Syria, there will be a vote of this House on a substantive motion, in Government time, with a recall of Parliament from recess if necessary?

David Cameron: First, as I have said, we all want to see a peace conference come about. The question is: how are we most likely to put pressure on the parties to attend that peace conference? I have to say, going back to the very first thing that the right hon. Gentleman said about the Russian decision to arm the regime, the Russian regime has been arming it for decades and, frankly, it is naive to believe anything else. That is important.
	On safeguards, we are not supplying the opposition with weapons. We are supplying them with technical
	assistance and non-lethal equipment. We have made no decision to supply the opposition with weapons, so that is the answer to that question.
	On the issue of the House of Commons, as the Foreign Secretary and I have made clear, I have always believed in allowing the House of Commons a say on all these issues. I think that was right when it came to Iraq, it was right when we made the decision to help the opposition in Libya, and it would be right for it to happen in the future as well. Let me stress again, however, that we have made no decision to arm the rebels in Syria.

Nick Harvey: On the Government plan to double the size of our reserve forces, has the Prime Minister considered the role that retired Ghurkhas might play? Now that they are allowed to settle here, many Ghurkhas have told me that they would welcome an ongoing connection with the British Army, but there is no real routine or tradition of recruiting them. I do not think there is any impediment, but it will not happen by magic. Will the Prime Minister authorise an initiative to recruit them?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. One of the ways that we can best build up the fully funded and fully equipped larger reserve of 30,000 that we want to see is to make sure that there are better opportunities for those who have served in the regular Army to serve in the reserves. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will look at my hon. Friend’s point about the Ghurkhas and see what can be done.

Jim McGovern: I do not know whether the Prime Minister watched the “Panorama” programme on Monday night, but I am sure he will be aware of the subject of blacklisting. The programme confirmed what many of us, particularly members of the Scottish Affairs Committee, already knew: that thousands of people in this country have been subjected to blacklisting. It has been compared to McCarthyism, but I think it is worse than that: it is secretive, behind closed doors and many people who are on a blacklist do not even know that they are on one. Will the Prime Minister call for an urgent inquiry into this practice, which I refer to not as McCarthyism, but as McAlpinism?

David Cameron: To answer the question very directly, I did not see “Panorama” on Monday night, but I will ask for a report on it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not support blacklisting and have taken action against it.

Jessica Lee: I thank the Prime Minister for his recent visit to Erewash to support the historic furniture making industry. Does he agree that we can best help the hard-working staff he met at Duresta in these tough times by protecting their pensions and capping benefits, rather than by protecting benefits and cutting pensions, as the Labour party would do?

David Cameron: I well remember my visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency. She is right that people in this country want to know that we will cap welfare and
	get on top of the welfare bill, but protect pensioners who have worked hard all their lives and saved for their retirement. I have done a little due diligence on the Opposition’s policy. Last week, they announced that they wanted a welfare cap. I thought, “That’s interesting. That’s progress.” However, when you look at it, would they cap the welfare bill for those in work? No they would not. Would they cap housing benefit? No they would not. The one thing that they want to cap, apparently, is pensions. So there we have it: protect welfare, punish hard workers and target pensioners—more of the same “something for nothing” culture that got this country into the mess in the first place.

Edward Miliband: Today’s fall in unemployment of 5,000 people is welcome, but will the Prime Minister explain why today’s figures also show that three years into his Government, living standards continue to fall?

David Cameron: First, it is worth announcing to the House what today’s unemployment figures show. They show that employment—the number of people in work in this country—is going up, that unemployment is going down, and that—[Interruption.] I know that the Labour party does not want to hear good news, but I think it is important that we hear it. The claimant count—the number of people claiming unemployment benefit—has fallen for the seventh month in a row. It is interesting that over the past year, while we have lost 100,000 jobs in the public sector, we have gained five times that amount in private sector employment.
	The figures show some increase in wages, but real wages have obviously been under huge pressure ever since the calamitous boom and bust over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. What is good for people is that this Government are cutting their income tax this year.

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman is into his fourth year as Prime Minister and his excuse for falling living standards is, “Don’t blame me, I’m only the Prime Minister.” It is simply not good enough. He does not understand that because of his failure to get growth in the economy, wages are falling for ordinary people. He wants to tell them that they are better off, but actually they are worse off. Will he confirm that today’s figures show that, after inflation, people’s wages have fallen since he came to power by more than £1,300 a year on average?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman might have noticed that the figures announced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies are from 2008, when he was sitting in the Cabinet. It is worth remembering that while he was Energy Secretary, sitting in the Cabinet, the economy got smaller—it shrank month after month after month. Under this Government, there are 1.25 million more private sector jobs and there has been good growth in private sector employment this year. That is what is happening. Of course living standards are under pressure. That is why we are freezing council tax. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is shouting away, as ever. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is excessive noise in the Chamber. Members must not shout at the Prime Minister any more than anyone should shout at the Leader of the Opposition. Let the answers be heard.

David Cameron: The answer is that there are 1.25 million more private sector jobs under this Government, and that is a good record.

Edward Miliband: There is no answer from the Prime Minister on the living standards crisis that is facing families up and down the country. It is no wonder what his side is saying about him. This is what the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) wrote about him at the weekend—[Interruption.] I know that Government Members do not want to hear it, but he said:
	“It’s like being in an aeroplane. The pilot doesn’t know how to land it. We can either do something about it…or sit back, watch the in-flight movies and wait for the inevitable.”
	I could not have put it better myself about this Prime Minister. The reality is that day in, day out, what people see—[Interruption.] Calm down, just calm down. The crimson tide is back. Day in, day out, people see prices rising and wages falling, while the Prime Minister tells them that they are better off. He claims that the economy is healing, but for ordinary families life is getting harder. They are worse off under the Tories.

David Cameron: Only someone who wants to talk down our economy could pick a day like today—more people in work, unemployment down, youth unemployment down, the claimant count down, yet not one word of respect for that good agenda on jobs. The right hon. Gentleman talks about aeroplanes. Never mind getting on aeroplanes, this is what the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said about his leadership:
	“we are literally going nowhere”.
	He has not even got on the aeroplane because he has not got a clue.

Mark Pritchard: Last December, the whole of Shropshire welcomed the Government’s support for a new direct rail link from Shropshire to London. This week, however, Network Rail has blocked Virgin’s bid. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that Network Rail should not get in the way of the will of the Shropshire people or economic progress?

David Cameron: We want to see more direct rail links such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned, and there is also a need for better links to Lancashire and Blackpool. One issue that the rail industry is battling with is the shortage of capacity, and High Speed 2 will help bring that freeing up of capacity to make more of those direct links possible. I was discussing that yesterday with the Transport Secretary, and we should be making some progress.

Seema Malhotra: Last week the Prime Minister could not confirm that taxpayers would not subsidise foreign buyers of property in the UK. Perhaps he can instead clarify whether his Help to Buy scheme will see taxpayers help fund purchases of second homes and holiday cottages.

David Cameron: Let me try to give the hon. Lady some satisfaction. First, this scheme is for people’s only home and it will have a mechanism in place to ensure
	that is the case. The second important thing is that in order to take part in the scheme, a person must have a credit record in this country. So no, the scheme will not do what she says it would.

Richard Graham: As a former pensions manager I was proud that this Government introduced a new triple lock formula—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is very discourteous. The hon. Gentleman, like every Member, should be treated with courtesy. Let us hear what he has to say.

Richard Graham: As a former pensions manager I was proud when this Government introduced a new triple lock formula on our state pension that increased by £234 in its first year for every pensioner in the land. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that under the shadow Chancellor’s plans to cut or cap pensions, all our pensioners will lose that increase and their standard of living will fall sharply?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government have put a cap on the welfare that families can receive, but we have been as generous as we can with pensioners who have worked hard during their lives and want to have dignity and security in old age. That is why we have the triple lock. Very interestingly, we now know that the Labour party wants to cut the pension because it is putting a cap on pensions but not on welfare. Just this morning the shadow Foreign Secretary was on television—the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) may not know this as he might not have been following it—and when challenged about the triple lock he said that it was Labour’s policy “at present”. Given all the U-turns we have had in the last week from the Labour party, I do not think “at present” will last very long.

David Crausby: Will the Prime Minister congratulate Bolton Wanderers football club for doing the right thing by rejecting sponsorship from a payday loan firm, and will he also join in, do the right thing, and give local authorities the power to ban those predatory loan sharks from our high streets?

David Cameron: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I wish Bolton Wanderers well for the future. We must give more support to credit unions in our country, which I think is one of the best ways of addressing the whole problem of payday loans and payday lending. I also hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that over the past year unemployment has fallen fastest in the north west of our country.

Julian Huppert: This is national carers week. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. If the session has to be extended to accommodate the democratic rights of Members, it will be extended. The hon. Gentleman will—I repeat will—be heard.

Julian Huppert: This is national carers week, so will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the huge commitment that thousands of carers make day in, day out, caring for ill, frail and disabled family members, friends and partners, often unrecognised and without financial assistance? Will he sign up to the carers week recommendations in “Prepared to Care?”

David Cameron: On this one, the hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House and the whole country in praising Britain’s carers. They do an amazing job. If they stopped caring, the cost to the taxpayer would be phenomenal, so we should do what we can to support our carers, and to ensure they get the proper respite breaks from caring that they need to go on doing the wonderful work they do.

Graham Jones: Why has the number of supply teachers in secondary schools in the past year increased by a staggering 17%?

David Cameron: I do not have the figures for that, but we have protected the amount of money that goes into schools per pupil so that schools have the money to employ the teachers they need.

Mary Macleod: Since 2010, unemployment in Brentford and Isleworth has fallen by 6.9% and youth unemployment has fallen by 19%. I will do my part as an organiser—I held my jobs and apprenticeships fair in Isleworth recently—but does that not show that our economic plan is working?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We see today a growth in employment, a fall in the claimant count and a fall in youth unemployment. As I have said, we are losing jobs in the public sector because we had to make cuts to it, but, most importantly of all, while we lost more than 100,000 jobs in the public sector in the past year, we gained five times as many in the private sector—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor, as ever, wants to give a running commentary, but let me remind the House what he has said, because this is one of the most important quotations in the past 10 years of British politics. He said:
	“Do I think the last Labour government spent too much, was profligate, had too”
	much
	“national debt? No, I don’t think there’s any evidence for that.”
	That phrase will be hung around his neck for ever.

Chris Ruane: Five hundred homes in my constituency were flooded in November. Residents in my constituency are terrified that their homes and businesses are now worthless because this Government have failed to replace the flood insurance scheme. They have also cut more than £200 million from flood defence works. Why has the Prime Minister sold my constituency down the river?

David Cameron: I can give the hon. Gentleman welcome news. We had to extend the period of the scheme so that we could continue negotiations, but I am confident that we will put in place a proper successor to it. An announcement will be made quite soon.

Annette Brooke: Mathmos makes lava lamps in my constituency—it has been making them for 50 years. It has very large exports to Germany, but has run into a problem with the reclassification of the product. May I send the information to the Prime Minister and enlist his support for this innovative company operating so well within our country?

David Cameron: I am happy to receive the information from my hon. Friend. It is important that we get Britain’s exports up. If we moved from one in five of our small and medium-sized enterprises exporting to one in four, we would wipe out our export deficit altogether, so I am happy to get my office to look at the information she has.

Virendra Sharma: The accident and emergency department at Ealing hospital is one of four that the Prime Minister is closing in north-west London. I welcome the Health Secretary’s review, but with waiting times at a nine-year high, ambulances being diverted and the risk of unnecessary deaths, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the closures are not a serious option if the NHS is safe in his hands?

David Cameron: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Health Secretary has asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to conduct a full review of the proposals, and it will submit its advice to him no later than mid-September. Let us be absolutely clear: whatever decision is reached, the proposals will not be due to lack of central Government funding. North-west London will receive £3.6 billion, which is £100 million more than the previous year. Of course, if we had listened to the Labour party, which said that more NHS spending was “irresponsible”, his hospitals would be receiving £100 million less.

Richard Harrington: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the China-Britain Business Council, which, under its inspirational vice-chairman, Mr Peter Batey, organised a seminar on exporting to China that was attended by more than 60 businesses in Watford last Friday? I think it should be congratulated on that initiative.

David Cameron: I am very happy to extend my praise to the China-Britain Business Council. If we look at the evidence of the past few years, there is now a significant increase in British exports to China, and a big increase in Chinese direct investment into the UK. All of that is welcome and we need to see it grow even further.

Jim Dowd: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he understands the importance of the creative industries to the economy of this country, and that they need to be buttressed by adequate intellectual property rights? Is he also aware, however, that his intellectual property Minister, that horny-handed son of toil, the fifth Viscount Younger of Leckie, recently told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, in relation to Google, that
	“I am very aware of their power…I am also very aware…that they have access, for whatever reason, to higher levels than me in No. 10”.
	Is that not a disgraceful comment on the way this Government—
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question, which refers to a distinguished constituent of mine, suffered from the disadvantage of being too long.

David Cameron: First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our creative industries are incredibly important for Britain’s future. The music industry has had a record year in terms of sales. One in every four albums sold in Europe is made here in the UK, which is something we can be very proud of. We have to get the intellectual property regime right, which is why we are legislating on it. We have already taken action to extend the life of copyright protection to 75 years, which has been welcomed across the music industry. I simply do not accept what he says about my Ministers. Indeed, the Minister with most responsibility for this matter is the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), and I think his father was ennobled by Harold Wilson, so that does not really fit.

Sheryll Murray: Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the hard work of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for ensuring that planning decisions taken at local level concerning wind turbines remain local? However, many of my constituents in South East Cornwall are becoming increasingly concerned that our green fields are becoming solar fields. Should decisions on solar fields be subject to the same planning rules as wind turbines?

David Cameron: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising the excellent work done by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, which has been carried on by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). They have both done a very good job at bringing some sanity to the situation on onshore wind. On solar panels, the Government of course substantially reduced the feed-in tariffs to ensure that this industry was not over-subsidised, because all subsidies end up on consumers’ bills and we should think very carefully about that.

Liz Kendall: Glenfield hospital has the second best survival rates from children’s heart surgery in the country. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the quality of care—including survival rates, which are what matter most to parents—is central to any decision on the future of these services?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will make an announcement shortly about Safe and Sustainable and children’s heart operations. We have to be frank with people: we cannot expect really technical surgery, such as children’s heart operations, to be carried out at every hospital in the country. As the parent of a desperately
	ill child wanting the best care for that child, you need to know that you are getting something that is world best when it comes to really technical operations, but you cannot have that everywhere. Clearly, however, the conclusion is that this process, which started in 2008, has not been carried out properly, so we need to make a restart.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that last year Britain became a net exporter of cars for the first time since 1976? If this trend continues, the UK will produce an all-time record of 2 million cars in 2017. Is this not a really good example of a high added-value sector upskilling and putting the “great” back into British manufacturing and exports?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a good example of a British industry that is succeeding. If we look at Honda, Nissan, Toyota or Jaguar Land Rover, we see really good news in our automotive sector. We now need to get behind it and encourage it to have as much of its supply chain onshore as possible. That is beginning to happen in these industries, and I hope for further progress in the months ahead.

Catherine McKinnell: This week, Newcastle city council has revealed that rent arrears have increased by more than £550,000 since the bedroom tax was introduced in April. Furthermore, 60% of affected households are falling into arrears. When will the Prime Minister admit that this devastating policy risks costing more than it saves?

David Cameron: We ended the spare room subsidy because we did not think it was fair to give to people in council houses a subsidy that those in private rented accommodation did not have. There is now a question for the Labour party: if it is to have this welfare cap, will it now tell us whether it will reverse this change? Will you? [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is shaking his head. Is that a no? That is right. After all the talk of the last few weeks—the iron discipline we were going to hear about, the welfare cap they were telling us about—they have failed the first test.

Karl McCartney: Tax avoidance is rightly at the heart of the G8 agenda. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tell the House what advice he might have received on this issue from either the leader of the Labour party or the international, pizza and expensive curry-loving shadow Chancellor?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is this Government who are putting aggressive tax avoidance at the heart of the G8 agenda, and what do we hear this week from the Labour party? They give tax avoidance advice to their donors. That is what it has been doing: £700,000 of tax has been avoided because of what Labour advised its donor to do.

Edward Balls: Calm down.

David Cameron: The shadow Chancellor asks me to calm down. Frankly, I cannot calm down because this is money that ought to be going into our health service, education and training young people. Let me challenge the Opposition: will you give the money back? Yes or no? It is very simple. On 2 April, the Labour leader said—according to The Guardian, so it must be true—that
	“tax avoidance is a terrible thing”.
	He has also said:
	“If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn't have a health service, we wouldn't have an education system.”
	That is the shameful state of the Labour party today.

Debbie Abrahams: This week is carers week. Will the Prime Minister show support for the 7 million unpaid carers across the country and invest £1.2 billion from last year’s NHS under-spend in social care, as we have pledged to do, so averting the Government-made crisis in accident and emergency and social care?

David Cameron: We could start with the money from Labour’s tax avoiding. That is money that should be going into the care system and the NHS. The Government have put £12.7 billion extra into our NHS. That is how we are supporting carers and hospitals, but the hon. Lady can have a word with the shadow Chancellor and her leader and say, “Pay the taxes you owe.”

Malcolm Bruce: As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, will the Prime Minister join me in recognising the challenges we face in continuing to bring oil and gas ashore from the North sea, the skills and dedication of those who do it and the paramount importance of safety in ensuring that we can continue to exploit these resources?

David Cameron: I certainly join my right hon. Friend in praising the North sea oil and gas industry. It is a real jewel in the crown of the United Kingdom economy. What is encouraging is that this year we are seeing a growth in production, as a number of new fields and projects come on stream, but he is absolutely right to say that at all times safety and security are absolutely paramount.

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. Points of order come after statements. I feel sure that he will be just as keen at that point and will spring up from his seat to favour the House with his thoughts.
	We shall now have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health, who is at this moment beetling towards the Dispatch Box.

Children’s Heart Surgery

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s congenital heart services.
	On average, around 3,700 heart procedures are carried out each year on children who have been diagnosed with congenital heart conditions.The mortality rates at Bristol royal infirmary identified as far back as 1989 indicated that we are not as successful as we should be in such operations. The Safe and Sustainable review began in 2008 and set out to ensure that children’s heart services are the best they can be for all children across the country. Whatever the controversy about the location of such services, we all have a responsibility to ensure the best possible outcomes for children and their families, who must always come first in any decision about service provision.
	Sir Ian Kennedy, in his Bristol inquiry report in 2001, recommended the concentration of medical and nursing expertise in a smaller number of centres. Subsequent working groups and reports have endorsed that recommendation, including the Royal College of Surgeons in 2007. The public consultation on the Safe and Sustainable review received more than 75,000 responses. This was the largest review of its kind, conducted independently of Government by the NHS. In July 2012, the then Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts, on behalf of local NHS commissioners, decided that children’s heart surgery networks should be formally structured around specialist surgical centres in Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle and Southampton, as well as Great Ormond Street and the Evelina children’s hospital in London. The JCPCT recommended that services should no longer be provided in Leicester, Leeds and Oxford or at the Royal Brompton or Harefield in London.
	Following the JCPCT’s announcement, three local health overview and scrutiny committees formally referred its decision for me to review. I wrote to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel asking it to undertake a full review of the proposals. I received that report on 30 April, and I would like to thank the IRP for producing such a comprehensive review of such a challenging topic. It strongly agrees with the case for change—specifically, that congenital cardiac surgery and interventional cardiology should be provided only by specialist teams large enough to sustain a comprehensive range of interventions, round-the-clock care, specialist training and research. I agree with the IRP’s analysis.
	However, the report also concludes that the outcome of the Safe and Sustainable review was based on a flawed analysis of the impact of incomplete proposals and leaves too many questions about sustainability and implementation. This is clearly a serious criticism of the Safe and Sustainable process. I therefore accept the recommendation that the proposals cannot go ahead in their current form, and I am suspending the review today. NHS England will also seek to withdraw its appeal against the judicial review successfully achieved by Save Our Surgery in Leeds. None the less, the IRP is clear that the clinical case for change remains, and its report is helpful in setting out the way forward in terms of broadening the scope of the discussion and looking
	in detail at the affordability and sustainability of the proposals. The IRP says, and I agree, that this is not a mandate for the status quo or for going back over all the ground already covered during the last five years. The case for change commands widespread support, and we must continue to seek every opportunity to improve services for children.
	The recommendations in the report set out the IRP’s view of what needs to be done to bring about the desired improvements in services in a way that addresses the gaps and weaknesses in the original proposals. Specifically, they include better co-ordination with the review of adult heart surgery services; expanding the detailed work on the clinical model and associated service standards for the whole pathway of care, beyond surgery; services to be fully modelled, and their affordability re-tested; NHS England to establish a systematic, transparent, authoritative and continuous stream of data and information about the performance of congenital heart services; NHS England and the relevant professional associations to put in place the means to continuously review the pattern of activity and optimise outcomes for the more rare, innovative and complex procedures; NHS England to reflect on the criticisms of the JCPCT’s assessment of quality and to learn lessons to avoid similar situations in its future commissioning of specialist services; and NHS England to use the lessons from this review to create with its partners a more resource-effective and time-effective process for achieving genuine involvement and engagement in its commissioning of specialist services.
	NHS England now must move forward on the basis of these clear recommendations and the Leeds court judgment. I have therefore written today to NHS England, and to the local overview and scrutiny committees that originally referred the JCPCT’s decision to me, to explain that the IRP’s report shows that the proposals of the Safe and Sustainable review clearly cannot go ahead in their current form. It is right to give all the parties some time to reflect on the best way forward, now that the IRP report is in the public domain, so I have asked NHS England to report back to me by the end of July on how it intends to proceed. In the meantime, it is important to stress that I believe that care for children with congenital heart conditions is safe in the NHS, and that ensuring it continues to be will be the top priority for all involved in this process.
	I know that many families have found the Safe and Sustainable review to be a traumatic experience. People are rightly proud of the hospitals and the staff that have saved, or tried their very best to save, the lives of their children. However, there is overwhelming consensus that we cannot stick with the model of care that we have now. To do so would be a betrayal of the families who lost loved ones in Bristol and who want nothing more than for the NHS to learn the lessons from their personal tragedies. So it is right we continue with this process, albeit in a different way. But it is also essential that the process should be performed correctly so that any decisions, as difficult as they might ultimately be, carry the confidence of the public. I commend the report and this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of his statement. He was right to begin by reminding the House of the events
	that led to the Safe and Sustainable review. Terrible failings in the care of very sick children at the Bristol royal infirmary in the 1980s and 1990s led Sir Ian Kennedy to call for expertise to be concentrated in fewer surgical sites—a call supported by more recent events, including those at the John Radcliffe hospital in 2010. Since Bristol, Sir Ian’s important conclusion has had the full support of the health professions and of those on both sides of this House. As we digest what the Secretary of State has just said, two considerations must remain at the forefront of our minds. First, that this issue must continue to transcend party politics. Secondly, that the complexity it presents should not derail our determination to deliver the safest possible care for children in England.
	That said, changes of this magnitude must be able to command public confidence and consensus, but that has not emerged since the decision on site selection by the Joint Committee. I fully support the reduction in sites, but when the decision was published I expressed concern about the distribution of the seven sites, which was skewed towards the western half of England and left a large swath of the east, from Newcastle to London, without a surgical centre. For a family in Hull or Lincoln, already at their wits’ end with worry, the wrench of leaving home to travel hundreds of miles, along with the cost of accommodation and time off work, would add to high levels of stress and anxiety. That is why the issue has aroused such strength of feeling, particularly across Yorkshire, the Humber and the east midlands—a concern well voiced and represented by Members throughout the House.
	Although clinical safety must predominate, does the Secretary of State agree that the NHS needs to give more consideration to public access and travel times when reconfiguring services? The truth is that the NHS has a habit of minimising these concerns in all reconfigurations—in this case, as the IRP report points out, the Joint Committee considered access the least important factor. The IRP concluded, surely rightly, that
	“the decision used a flawed and incomplete analysis of accessibility”.
	Going forward, will the Secretary of State ensure that this is corrected and that access is made a significant factor in any future decision?
	Turning to the review itself, the Secretary of State will know that one of the main concerns has been that the mortality data were not given enough weight. Although decisions of this kind cannot be based on death rates alone, we agree with John Deanfield, director of the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research who wrote in his letter to NHS England in April:
	“Mortality is only one measure of quality, but currently is the most…available outcome.”
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this data will feature more prominently in the further process of review announced today?
	My main concern with what the Secretary of State has just announced is the proposal to link the children’s review with the review of adult heart services, and the implications that might have for the timetable. The Secretary of State will know that there are around 30 centres across England carrying out adult heart surgery. The seven selected children’s centres are not all co-located with adult heart surgery and, indeed, a number of them are on specialist children sites, so the link between children’s and adult heart surgery is not clear.
	Is there not a real danger that by linking the review with adult heart surgery, the Secretary of State is introducing more complexity and, potentially, controversy, risking a loss of focus and more delay? By broadening out in this way, is there not a danger that we will lose the consensus that has already been gained over the future of children’s heart surgery? I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would say more on those points.
	This decision will also have implications for the timetable of the children’s review and it will not have escaped the House’s notice that that Secretary of State has not announced a clear timetable. Can he set out more precisely a timetable for the decision making that will now follow? He says that the review will be concluded by the autumn. What people will want to know is when the decisions will be made and implemented. Can he say more about that?
	The statement sets out a major role for NHS England going forward and questions may be asked about the independence of the review he has announced. What guarantees can he give that NHS England will operate independently of vested interests linked to the 10 sites?
	Finally, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot risk any loss of confidence in the process, damaging confidence in all 10 existing sites. Will he say more about what he will do in the interim period to support all existing units and ensure that there is no loss of expertise?
	In conclusion, it is, of course, essential that the public have confidence in the process and the final decision. Balanced against that, however, is the fact that unnecessary delay will not bring the best results for the children who most need our help. The Secretary of State is right to say that we need a process that is seen to be fair by all concerned, but, equally, a point will come when decisions must be made. In the end, I want to assure the Secretary of State that when he comes to face up to those difficult decisions, he will have our support in doing so.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of his comments and the bipartisan way in which he has approached these issues. I particularly welcome his last point. We have many debates in this House, but this is one issue where we are completely at one. If there is a difficult decision to be made that will save children’s lives, we must have the courage to take it. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support on that.
	I think that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree with me that while this issue transcends party politics, it is one from which all of us—on both sides of the House, throughout the NHS and indeed in local authorities—have things to learn. I think that the biggest issue for us all to consider is the sheer amount of time that it has taken. The original concerns about what happened in Bristol were raised in 1989. I am pleased to say that they have been dealt with, but there are broader, system-wide lessons to be learnt. It took until 2001 for Sir Ian Kennedy’s report to be completed, it took until 2008 for the Safe and Sustainable review to begin, and now, in 2013, we are having to suspend the process yet again. What has happened is not the right outcome for children, and we must all learn the lessons from that.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned site selection. I consider that to be one of the most crucial areas in which the process was flawed. Whether we should involve
	adult heart services is a difficult question, but one of the key recommendations in the IRP’s report is that they should be taken into account. I think that we should pay attention to that recommendation, because the panel thought about it very carefully. The reason for its view was that the same surgeons often operate on children and on adults. Adults also have congenital heart conditions that require operations. The panel also says that if the best outcomes are to be achieved for children, services must be concentrated in teams that have four full-time surgeons, provide specialist training, and conduct research. The knock-on impact of what is happening in adult heart services is relevant.
	I agree with the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman said about mortality data, but I know that he will also understand the difficulty of publishing such data on a very small number of cases when it may not be statistically significant. That was one of the great debates that we had over the temporary suspension of services at Leeds. We must be careful not to publish data that could lead the public to make the wrong conclusions. In principle, however, transparency is the most important thing for us to bring about.
	I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the timetable. I think that we must get on with this process: I do not want to delay it any more than is necessary. I have talked extensively to NHS England about how it should be approached. NHS England—along with all the stakeholders involved—needs time in which to digest the contents of the IRP report, which was published only today. I consider that the minimum period that I need to allow it in which to come up with the timetable is until the end of next month. I appreciate that that is six weeks, but I think that it is a sensible period. I certainly want to be able to publish an indicative timetable by then, so that people can understand how the process will continue and how we will learn the lessons.
	I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in my statement should undermine the public’s confidence in the brilliant work being done by heart surgeons all over the country for adults and children. Our heart surgery survival rates have improved so much that they are now some of the best in Europe, and we can be very proud of the work that those surgeons do, day in, day out. However, that does not mean that we cannot strive to be even better.

Stephen Dorrell: I welcome the statement, although, in a sense, I welcome it with a heavy heart. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Safe and Sustainable process could not go ahead because it had fundamentally lost the confidence of both patients and clinicians, and therefore did not form a proper basis for necessary change?
	Given that it is now more than 12 years since the publication of Sir Ian Kennedy’s report, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not a success for the NHS? Does he agree that it is a real challenge for NHS England to put a proper time frame around necessary change for these services, and then to use that as a basis for changes that we know to be needed in other specialist services in the national health service?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my right hon. Friend on both those points, as, indeed, on many others. It is true that the Safe and Sustainable process did not have the confidence of the public. It should be emphasised that when a controversial and difficult change is proposed, there is always likely to be public opposition. However—as I am sure we shall hear from Leeds Members in particular—this process did not command confidence in Leeds, or in other centres, because there was a sense that the outcome had been determined before the start of the consultation. The public found that totally unacceptable, and indeed it is unacceptable. The point of a consultation is for those who initiate it to listen genuinely, and to engage with stakeholders. That must be one of the most important lessons to learn.
	My right hon. Friend was also right to suggest that, in general, this is not a success for the NHS. We need a much better process to enable us to face difficult decisions about reconfigurations of services, and, in particular, carrying the public with us when we must make a difficult change that will save lives. We have not done that as well as we need to.

Hilary Benn: It has been clear to many of us for a long time that this process was flawed, and that has now been recognised by the IRP. I pay tribute to the extraordinary campaign in support of the Leeds children’s heart surgery unit in my constituency, which has helped to bring us to this day.
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but does he agree that it is important for the process to be open and transparent this time, and to focus on what it is meant to be about, namely ensuring that the very best surgery is available for our very sick children?

Jeremy Hunt: That is entirely right. On this occasion, it is clear that the concerns of the campaigners were valid, and that the process was not conducted as it should have been. Interestingly, the campaigners commented that they felt that their engagement with the IRP was a much more open process than their engagement with the NHS.
	Many people in the NHS believe passionately, and for absolutely the right reasons, that we need to change the way in which services are delivered. I agree with them, and specialised services such as those that we are discussing today provide a very good example of that. We know that the more operations a heart surgeon performs, the better he or she will become at his or her job, and the more likely a successful outcome is. However, if we are to carry the public with us—and they are, after all, the people whom the NHS is there for—we must do a much better job of genuine engagement.

Edward Garnier: I thank the Secretary of State for an intelligent and thoroughly considered statement which will have brought great joy to many people in Leicestershire. I also commend the shadow Secretary of State for dealing with the matter on a cross-party basis. We in Leicestershire have dealt with it on that basis as well: my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) have been, if I may say so, the leading ladies in the Glenfield hospital campaign.
	I am grateful for the respite that we are being given by the Secretary of State. What advice can he give us to give to the clinicians, nurses and parents of patients at Glenfield hospital about how best to present, or re-present, their case between now and the time at which he and his advisers will reach a final conclusion about the disposition of children’s heart services?

Jeremy Hunt: We must all engage with the process thoroughly and fully. We, as Members of Parliament, have a responsibility to engage with our constituents about some of the complexities involved. The issue of mortality rates, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is one of those complexities. They are very important, but they are not the only consideration, and, when it comes to specialised services, they are extremely difficult to interpret properly. We must engage in an intelligent and constructive way, and reassure our constituents that all of us—Government and Opposition—want the best outcome for children, the outcome that will save the most children’s lives.
	Let me return to what the Prime Minister said earlier. I have no problem with explaining to my constituents that in the case of certain services, they are better off travelling further. I did not respond earlier to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about travel, so let me say now that I agree with him that it must be taken into consideration. According to the IRP’s report, the whole care pathway needs to be examined. That means not just the visit to the hospital for surgery, but follow-up care and early assessments. In that context, then travel becomes much more important.
	If we are honest with our constituents about the fact that there may be a difficult decision at the end of the process, we are much more likely to earn their trust.

Nick Brown: How much public money has been spent on taking us to the point that we have now reached? Is the IRP report available to Members of Parliament? Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the process that will take place between now and the day on which he must come to the Dispatch Box and announce very difficult and controversial decisions to the House, and will his decisions stick?

Jeremy Hunt: The cost to date of the Safe and Sustainable process is about £6 million and Members of this House will rightly ask whether that money has been spent well, given the flaws in the process identified today by the IRP. I would also say, however, that it is right to spend money on carrying out such processes properly. It would be the wrong approach to say that, based on the cost of the process, we are not prepared to consider how we can improve services.
	On the timetable, now that the report is public—it is available to Members of the House and the public as of today—I have given NHS England and all stakeholders until the end of next month to come back to me with a revised plan.

Jason McCartney: I agree with the Secretary of State that families must come first. For me, that means the families of Ben Pogson and Joel Bearder, young constituents of mine who have been treated at the wonderful Leeds unit. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the new review will be
	based on the fundamental principle of patient choice and that doctors should go where the patients are, rather than the other way around?

Jeremy Hunt: Patient choice is very important, but it is also fair to say that there are other considerations in such a review, such as clinical best practice and what outcomes will get the best results for children. We need to be up front with the public that that will not mean specialist children’s heart surgery being offered in every major city in this country. There will be some difficult decisions at the end of the process. The broader point about patient choice, when it comes to considering mortality rates, is that it ties in very well with the concept of peer review. The way we can get better outcomes for children is by being able to compare what happens in different centres, and that is a very important part of the process.

John Denham: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge one fact that has complicated this process? A foundation trust that loses children’s heart surgery will probably lose paediatric intensive care and, therefore, all the rest of its paediatric service activities, doing potentially catastrophic damage to the budgets of some trusts. Are the institutional pressures on individual trusts not one reason why it has been so hard to get a collaborative approach to that fundamental change? How does the Secretary of State intend to resolve that issue as he moves forward with the review?

Jeremy Hunt: The independent review says that the knock-on effects on adult heart surgery, and the interrelationship between the two, need to be considered. There are always knock-on effects of a service reconfiguration. Within reason, one must consider them, but one must also bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said: one must ensure that one does not overcomplicate the reviews. If we consider every single knock-on effect of every single change, the danger is that we end up not being able to change anything at all, which on this occasion would be an abdication of our important responsibilities.

Greg Mulholland: I have called consistently for leadership and accountability. I believe that we have had those things today, and I thank the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Department for that. I have said consistently that there was something wrong with the decision-making process. We were right, whereas those who told us that we should be quiet and ignore the serious flaws, clear bias and utter lack of transparency were wrong. May we have a full investigation into the clear maladministration in the course of the review? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that lessons will be learned, which is key, and that those conflicted people who have let children down and wasted taxpayers’ money will play no part in any further review in the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I can confirm that a thorough process of learning the lessons will happen. As I said earlier, we must learn big lessons about the time it takes to make very important service changes in the NHS, not just in children’s heart surgery but in many other areas. We need to learn those lessons. The person who was responsible
	for the JCPCT, Sir Neil McKay, is no longer responsible and has retired from the NHS. We need to look at everyone who was involved in the process and see where the right calls were and were not made. If we do not, we will never be able to make important changes in the NHS—and we have a big responsibility to make those changes.

Mary Glindon: The proposed reconfiguration of children’s heart surgery has gone on for years. Meanwhile, children are suffering and even dying. Why cannot the Secretary of State have a more rigorous timetable based on the lessons learned from the review so far?

Jeremy Hunt: That is what I absolutely want to do. One huge frustration for those on both sides of the House has been how the process has dragged on. If I could have come to the House today with a detailed timetable, I would have. Although we had internal access to the report before today while I considered its findings and reached a judgment, we believed that it was necessary for external stakeholders to see the report and give their view of how the timetable should proceed. That is why I have given NHS England until the end of July to come back with that timetable.

Nicola Blackwood: The Health Secretary is absolutely right that parents in my constituency have found this process deeply destabilising. Although they also want to see quality, they felt that their concerns about building up a good relationship with their medical teams and about accessibility and co-located services were simply dismissed. Will the Health Secretary assure me that that will not be the case in the future, and will he look more closely at the networking solution we have in Oxford and Southampton, which strikes a good balance between having a quality site further away and providing aftercare in an accessible site with trusted medical teams?

Jeremy Hunt: That is a very interesting thought. My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the IRP report states that the whole care pathway, not just the surgery on its own, needs to be considered when we make this very difficult decision. I agree with her that this has been a very distressing process for every family involved and although we are suspending the process today, we have a responsibility to be honest with people. At the end of the process, there will be a difficult decision to take and we will honestly do our duty as Members of this House.

Fabian Hamilton: I know that all the families of children affected throughout Yorkshire will welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. Will he reassure the House that any future review panel, following whatever timetable he decides, will comprise representatives fairly and equally chosen from all the centres that will be affected by any decisions? Secondly, what assurances can he give that rather than the data used in flawed reports, such as the now infamous National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research 8 April report on mortality data in children’s heart surgery units, we will use data that are consistent and reliable?

Jeremy Hunt: On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, we need to be very careful about how we use any mortality data, particularly on specialist services where distortions can be based on just one or two operations. I know that he will agree, however, that we have a responsibility to act if we have genuine concerns. That is what happened and the process over Easter was very difficult. One lesson we have learned in the NHS is that in Bristol it took a very long time—years—before anything was done about the higher mortality rates and we do not want to make that mistake again. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s other point, too.

Jane Ellison: I know that many of the staff and patients at the Royal Brompton hospital will very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. Although the hospital is not in my constituency, many of the staff live in my constituency and other hon. Members have been extremely active in making the Royal Brompton’s case over recent months. There was particular concern about the possible impact on other specialisms of any decision to withdraw children’s heart surgery, so can my constituents be assured that such concern will be taken into account in any future process?

Jeremy Hunt: The IRP report says that we must consider the broader impact of any changes beyond the narrow question of children’s heart surgery, so I am sure that that is one of the lessons that will be learned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. On the assumption that Dr Lee has now put his phone away, may I say to Members that they should not stand to speak while at the same time fiddling with a phone? It is multi-tasking in a way that is perhaps a tad discourteous. We do, however, want to hear from Dr Lee, who is a distinguished physician, so let us hear from him.

Phillip Lee: My apologies, Mr Speaker. As someone who has long argued for the reconfiguration of acute and surgical services, I consider the management of this clinical consolidation to be of great importance. Does the Secretary of State agree that best clinical outcomes should be the primary driver of any reconfiguration and that there is a need for a national plan for the reconfiguration of all acute and emergency services? If such a plan were drawn up, it should receive cross-party support.

Jeremy Hunt: May I commend my hon. Friend, because he is one of the few Members of this House who has been prepared to campaign for changes in acute services in his own constituency, which might not necessarily be what his constituents would want? He has shown considerable bravery on this issue. I will mention his idea of a national plan for acute and emergency services to Sir Bruce Keogh, who is carrying out the review of emergency services as part of the vulnerable older people plan. We definitely need to have a different national approach to service reconfigurations.

John Healey: What a waste of everybody’s time. Why should anyone believe that the new review process will be better than the last one or that the Secretary of State will make decisions at
	the end of it? Will he apologise now to the parents, the families and the staff for allowing this flawed and failing process to go on for so long and for the anguish that they have suffered during it?

Jeremy Hunt: I think we have been having a constructive discussion about an extremely difficult issue, in which I hope I have spoken for the whole House in saying that there are things that we need to learn on all sides, as the earliest signs went back as far as 1984 and still, in 2013, we have not been able to make the progress we should. It is important that we maintain that bipartisan approach, because at the end of this process there will be difficult decisions to make and we need to maintain public confidence that we are thinking about this in a non-party-political way.

Stuart Andrew: I think I can hear the cheers in Leeds as I speak. May I put on the record my thanks to the IRP and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for listening to our concerns in a very difficult situation? These findings clearly vindicate what we have been saying all along, but as we move forward will he agree to meet me and clinicians to maximise confidence in the future review? Will he assure us that co-location of services, accessibility and patient experience are paramount and that all units will have the same scrutiny as the one in Leeds has undergone? May I invite him to visit the unit in Leeds, so that he can meet the patients, families and staff with whom it has been my privilege to work?

Jeremy Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning for children’s heart surgery in Leeds in an exemplary way, and he deserves huge credit for the responsible approach he has taken throughout. I would be delighted to meet him and clinicians from Leeds. Many things need to be learned, but his points about the importance of the patient experience, of clinical outcomes and of an impartial process in site selection, which is at the heart of the concerns people had about this process, are ones we need to reflect on very hard indeed.

Kevin Barron: I welcome the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made today. Notwithstanding the fact that we would all want the best possible outcomes from this surgery, wherever it takes place, site selection or geography is a concern for us, for the health service and for patients and their families, so can we make sure it is taken into account? If skills are seen to be weak in certain geographical areas of the UK, we should improve those skills, not think about moving people elsewhere.

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Site selection needs to be done by people who are completely independent of any local interest in where the surgery should happen. That is the crucial point we need to learn, but the point about skills is also important.

Andrew Bridgen: May I praise my right hon. Friend for his brave and eminently sensible statement today on this most emotive of topics? However, will he assure the House that any future plans to remove children’s cardiac services from the Glenfield hospital in Leicester will take full account of the world-leading extra corporeal membrane oxygenation
	services which will also have to be moved? The Secretary of State is completely right on this issue and many others: we do not need a quick solution; we need the right solution.

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I would actually like a solution that happens as quickly as possible, provided the process is done properly. He will be pleased to know that the IRP report does say that the impact of suspending the review and thinking again should be borne in mind in respect of decisions that have already been made as to the siting of ECMO services, and I know that NHS England will be reflecting on that.

Alan Whitehead: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the sheer difficulty in respect of recruitment, retention, planning and maintenance of an excellent service that has been incurred by the units affected, particularly the one in Southampton? Is he prepared to look at the possibility of providing additional resources to those trusts affected to enable them to maintain those excellent services during a continued period of uncertainty? Not only is it a continued period of uncertainty, but there has been continued oscillation between near certainty, uncertainty, no certain and possible certainty as a result of this interminable review and the way it has been conducted.

Jeremy Hunt: I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman; one of the biggest casualties of the length of time it is taking to resolve this very difficult issue is morale at the excellent children’s heart units that we have across this country, and recruitment is one of the biggest concerns in that regard. Resources are now allocated independently by NHS England, but I know that its priority is to ensure the safety of services.

Steve Brine: May I thank the Secretary of State for his statement? Once he received the IRP report, he had little choice but to make this decision. I feel sure that it will be met with a deep sigh in Southampton, just because of the lack of certainty that it now extends for the trust there. To what extent will the Safe and Sustainable process now be rolled back? How far will it be rolled back? Is the number of centres now back in the “not sure” box? As he has said, we still face an incredibly difficult decision and there is still a reduction in the number of centres—or is there?

Jeremy Hunt: There will be a reduction in the number of centres at the end of this process, as is clear from what the IRP report says. It thinks we would have better outcomes for children if we concentrated surgery in fewer places, with more comprehensive facilities offered in all those places. However, we need to get the process right in order to get there.

George Mudie: I thank the Secretary of State for, and congratulate him on, his decision. However, as an outsider I watched this process descending into almost a medical beauty contest, with comparing and deciding. Surely if we are rationalising the centres, the key starting point should be their placement for the maximum benefit of the populations, the patients and the parents, not this business of who has the lowest mortality rate. Doctors can move, but populations cannot.

Jeremy Hunt: The answer is this needs to be a mix of both; this needs to be about clinical excellence and issues such as accessibility and travel. A wide range of factors are involved. I accept, and this is widely accepted, that it is particularly difficult with specialist services to interpret mortality rates in a meaningful way, but that does not mean we should not look at them and seek to learn what we can.

David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend’s statement will have given great hope to all those in and around Leicestershire who campaigned to keep Glenfield hospital, and we welcome the acceptance that the original site selection was flawed and the implicit acceptance of bias against the east midlands and against the east of the country in general. On a positive note, if we are going to have the clinical case for change accepted and consolidation in the future, what is his understanding of the number of lives that would be saved if we have to go through this painful process?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not want to pluck a number out of the air; I want to listen to the clinical evidence on that. However, it is important to say that as a result of the excess mortality identified at Bristol the Kennedy report said that up to 170 lives could have been saved over a 10-year period in just one location. That is why it is so important that we get this decision right.

Nicholas Dakin: The Secretary of State is right to say that, sadly, the process did not have the confidence of the public. I very much welcome his statement. In moving forward, will he ensure that any data used are independent, transparent and credible, and that patient experience and access are given the right priority in the decision making?

Jeremy Hunt: Those are all things that the IRP talked about in its review, and I very much accept its recommendations in those areas.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the Secretary of State on calling in the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which has successfully exposed this shambles. I imagine that my constituents strongly suspect that the thick end of the £6 million cost of the exercise has gone on fat fees for management consultants. Given that the IRP concludes that there was flawed analysis and too many questions left unanswered, surely those management consultants should be banned from taking part in any further NHS reviews?

Jeremy Hunt: If there are management consultants responsible for what went wrong, I am sure that the NHS will make the appropriate conclusions.

Diana Johnson: I am pleased to hear that care pathways as a whole will be looked at and given consideration. Will the Secretary of State confirm, as he made clear in response to a number of questions, that the genuine concerns of constituents, including mine in Hull, will be listened to? Transport and access are very important to my constituents because of the city’s geographical location. Whoever makes these decisions should fully understand the geography of the country and be able to make a proper decision.

Jeremy Hunt: I completely accept what the hon. Lady says, and obviously transport and access do matter; that comes out in the IRP report. However, we have to be honest about the fact that if we are conducting surgery at fewer sites, the end result is that some people in the country will have to travel further than they currently do. That is why this is such a difficult decision. She will understand that a choice has to be made in that respect.

Bob Stewart: Last Saturday I attended the funeral of a girl, with my wife and my daughter Delphine. The girl was a 16-year-old in my daughter’s class. A month ago, she suddenly dropped dead. She had not been aware of any problem. Arabella Campbell was a beautiful, highly intelligent, vivacious girl who had everything to live for, and nothing was known about her problem. Can Arabella’s death, and the death of hundreds of other children and young adults, be used as a spur to reinvigorate the NHS campaign to identify young people who may suffer a heart attack as a result of a problem that has not been detected before, difficult as that may be?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that the whole House will want to send its condolences to Arabella Campbell’s family, and the way that my hon. Friend has brought the issue to the attention of the House shows the seriousness of the issues that we are considering. Part of what the IRP talks about is a proper review of the screening process for people who have congenital heart failure. Yesterday I met a group of campaigners on sudden adult death syndrome who had an equally tragic story, and I am waiting for advice from the national immunisation and screening committee on the right way forward in this respect. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.

Jonathan Ashworth: Clinicians at Glenfield hospital, and people across Leicester and the wider east midlands, will welcome what the Secretary of State said today on the suspension of Safe and Sustainable, but I want to ask him a further question on the point that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made about the future of the extra corporeal membrane oxygenation centre. The decision to move ECMO from Leicester to Birmingham was a direct consequence of Safe and Sustainable. That decision is now suspended—I hope that is what the Secretary of State is saying. Will he reconfirm that the future of ECMO provision will be fully taken into account by NHS England?

Jeremy Hunt: I can confirm that. One of the recommendations of the review was that the ECMO decision be linked to what is decided under Safe and Sustainable, and I know that NHS England will want to consider that carefully. I hope to be able to come back to the House to report what it decides as soon as possible.

Martin Vickers: My Cleethorpes constituency is on the very edge of the area served by the Leeds unit, and I particularly welcome the acknowledgement that future investigations will consider geography, but as well as feeling isolated geographically, many of my constituents felt somewhat isolated from the whole process. We do not want to prolong the process unnecessarily, but will the Secretary of State assure me that there will be some mechanism allowing input from individual constituents?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely give that assurance. The fact that the engagement with the public in this process was not as genuine as it should have been is one of the biggest lessons for the NHS to learn.

Catherine McKinnell: Two years ago, almost to the day, we debated the issue in the House. I said at the time, and reiterate today, that the issue must be resolved as quickly as possible to end the damaging delay and uncertainty, and to secure the safety of children and the best clinical care for them. The Secretary of State has given a variety of reassurances, but I would like to hear a cast-iron reassurance, for my constituents, that in any future decision, clinical expertise and care will be paramount, and that this will be resolved as quickly as possible.

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy firmly to give both those assurances.

Julian Smith: The Health Secretary is absolutely right to push ahead with specialisation in cardiology services. I represent one of the most rural constituencies in England, and I thank
	him for taking on board the need for more focus on access. In the future, I recommend that more money and time be spent working with members of review panels, because about a year and a half ago, when MPs met them, it was clear that some of them were out of their depth. It would do everybody a lot of good if we spent more money and time helping them.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sure that that lesson will be learned.

Julian Sturdy: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, as will concerned families across my constituency of York Outer, and across the county of Yorkshire. Will he ensure that the new review recognises that units where paediatric and maternity services are located on a single site offer the optimal patient experience?

Jeremy Hunt: I think we need to be guided by the clinical evidence in that respect, but I urge my hon. Friend and his constituents, if they have a strong representation to make in that respect, to make it to the review when it re-proceeds.

Point of Order

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apologies for my over-eagerness just after Prime Minister’s questions. Last night, the Labour party did not submit the motion for today’s debate until about 7 o’clock in the evening. Do you not think that is a gross discourtesy to the House? It does not allow Members time to prepare and reorganise their schedules. What can you do, through your office, to encourage the Labour party to get its act together and get its motions in on time?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. To be fair, I think that the motion was in on time, to use his words. However, I note what he says, and I think others will have noted it. Obviously, it is helpful to the House to have maximum notice of these things, so that people who wish to table amendments have the opportunity to do so. I emphasise that nothing disorderly has occurred, but the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to his concern in his characteristically rumbustious fashion.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Protecting Children Online

Helen Goodman: I beg to move,
	That this House deplores the growth in child abuse images online; deeply regrets that up to one and a half million people have seen such images; notes with alarm the lack of resources available to the police to tackle this problem; further notes the correlation between viewing such images and further child abuse; notes with concern the Government’s failure to implement the recommendations of the Bailey Review and the Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection on ensuring children’s safe access to the internet; and calls on the Government to set a timetable for the introduction of safe search as a default, effective age verification and splash page warnings and to bring forward legislative proposals to ensure these changes are speedily implemented.
	The motion is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).
	The whole country was shocked and revolted by the trials of Mark Bridger and Stuart Hazell, the two men who brutally murdered April Jones and Tia Sharp. They sent a shiver of horror down the spine of every parent in the land. In both cases, they were found to have huge libraries of child abuse images on their computers. In both cases, this was the first known offence against children. Surely it is now beyond doubt that what a person sees influences how they behave.
	Let us be clear: there is no such thing as child pornography. There is child abuse online. Any image depicting a sexual act with or on a child under 18 is illegal. Child abuse images are illegal under international law and in every country on the globe. The Internet Watch Foundation is the UK hotline for reporting child abuse. It has pioneered this work since 1996. It can disrupt and delete content on the web within an hour and it protects child victims by working in co-operation with the police at the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. It also aims to prevent people from stumbling across such images. We all owe an immense debt of gratitude to the IWF.
	However, the surge in the scale of the problems threatens to overwhelm both the IWF and the police. The IWF’s independent survey by ComRes found that up to 1.5 million people have stumbled on child abuse images, yet last year the IWF received only 40,000 notifications and some 13,000 web pages were taken down as a result. Its latest figures show a 40% rise on last year.

Julian Huppert: I support the hon. Lady’s opening words. I declare an interest as an IWF champion; the IWF does great work. Does she accept that her figure of 1.5 million people having seen child pornography is based on a sample of 2,000 people, of whom about 50 said that they seen such images? We do not know how much people have seen, or if they have seen anything. To extrapolate that far may be misleading.

Helen Goodman: Yes; I discussed the numbers with the IWF, of course. It says that the survey on which it based that estimate was typical of surveys it has been doing over several years, so I think the problem is widespread and that we should not argue too much. It is clear that the numbers are far, far too big.
	Up to 88% of the child victims appear to be 10 years old or under, and 61% of the images depicted sexual activity between adults and children, including rape and sexual torture.

Ann Coffey: Google is one of the biggest hosts of child sexual abuse images, albeit inadvertently, and it should therefore accept the major responsibility for proactively monitoring and removing those images. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Google spent as much money on monitoring and removing illegal child sexual abuse images as it does on paying accountants to avoid tax in the UK, it might go some way towards living up to its motto, “Don’t be evil”?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. By a happy co-incidence I received an e-mail at 12.35 pm announcing that Google is increasing its contribution to the IWF to £1 million.

Madeleine Moon: My hon. Friend spoke about the number of reported cases. As an Internet Watch Foundation champion, I went into every one of my primary schools, spoke to the 10 and 11-year-olds at every one of those schools, and asked those children how many of them had seen indecent images online. Every child in every class had been exposed to such material. Is that not a national disgrace?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is obviously doing great work in her constituency and what she says is truly shocking. It is confirmed by the statistics which the NSPCC has been collecting.

Alun Cairns: Reference has been made to Google. I do not defend that or any other search engine other than to say that this debate is highly technical and we need to be accurate. Google does not host anything; nor does any other search engine. Google merely provides the means of finding a site, and the hosting, which is an international problem, needs to be addressed appropriately.

Helen Goodman: This is not an occasion for nit-picking—[Interruption.] It is important to take an international approach and I am disappointed in the Government for, among other things, not taking any international initiatives.
	The police say their resources are inadequate to the task. Peter Davies, the head of CEOP, said that the police are aware of 60,000 people swapping or downloading images over peer-to-peer networks but they lack the resources to arrest them all. In any case, the IWF currently deals only with images on the web, not peer-to-peer images.
	In answer to my parliamentary question last week, the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) revealed that in 2012, despite the fact that the police are aware of those 60,000 people, only 1,570 were convicted of such
	offences. What do Ministers intend to do about the problem? I hope that in his winding-up remarks the Home Office Minister will tell us. There is no point huffing and puffing about the problem if Ministers do not take the necessary action. It is obvious to the whole country that the current situation is totally unacceptable. It is obvious that Ministers have not got a grip. It is obvious that we need a change.
	That is why our motion proposes a complete shift in approach from a reactive stance to a proactive strategy. We are calling for three things—first, safe search as the default option. The industry has already made the filters that are needed to screen out not just child abuse but pornography and adult content generally. We are saying that the filters should be the default, either on all computers and devices connected to the internet or by requiring internet service providers to install them by default. Then we can institute the second part of an effective system: robust age verification. A person seeking to cross the filter would be asked to confirm their name, age and address, all of which can be independently checked. Again, we know that this works. It is what Labour did for gambling sites in 2005. It is what mobile phone companies do when someone opens an account and gets a SIM card. It is what people do when they get a driving licence.

Julian Huppert: Does the hon. Lady accept that if we had safe search and such controls, young people would not be able either to access information about homophobic bullying, about how to deal with child abuse and about a range of other subjects? Indeed, such things are already filtered out by mobile phone providers, to the great detriment of many children.

Helen Goodman: No, I do not accept that. I shall go on to explain why that is a misconception on the part of the hon. Gentleman.
	The approach that we are suggesting would cut demand for sites as well as reducing the supply of them. It would tackle child abuse online and the other major issue addressed by the Bailey review and the independent parliamentary inquiry—children accessing unsuitable material online. In recent days I have had the benefit of energetic lobbying from Google in particular, pressing its view that except for child abuse images, which are illegal, all other images should be available unfiltered on the internet. I have heard its views and come to my own conclusion.
	I hope the Government’s vacillation on this point is not because they cannot put children before powerful vested interests. I say safe search filters are not a free speech issue. This is not censorship. This is about child protection and reproducing online the conditions established over a long period in the real world.

Geraint Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Council of Europe One in Five campaign, which is built on the fact that one in five children across Europe is likely to be a victim of sexual violence? Does she agree that the magnitude of sexual violence is enormously inflamed by the open gateway of internet child abuse?

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Once again, he emphasises the importance of the international dimension.
	What we are proposing is aimed at reproducing the conditions that we have already established in the real world. The distinction between legal and illegal content is far too simplistic. For cinemas we have the highly respected independent British Board of Film Classification. It produces age ratings—12, 15 or 18. Any cinema found to be regularly flouting the age restrictions would lose its local authority licence. Furthermore, material classified as R18 can be seen only in certain cinemas, and some material deemed obscene is cut entirely. Yet on the internet it is all freely accessible to every 12-year-old. Indeed—this relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said a moment ago—the NSPCC believes that one quarter of nine to 16-year olds have seen sexual images online. We are not talking about young women baring their breasts—that is like something from Enid Blyton compared with the Frankenstein images now available.
	The dangers are clear. On average, 29% of nine to 16-year-olds have contact online with someone they have never met face to face. Of course there is a real difference between child abuse online and extreme pornography, but unfortunately in the real world people who become addicted to pornography look for more and more extreme images, and that sometimes tips into child abuse images. Addiction is the issue. Users are found to have literally millions of images on their computer, and child abuse sites are signposted on pornography sites. Both are shared peer to peer.
	Therefore, an effective age verification system would mean that paedophiles would lose the anonymity behind which they currently hide, and the denial of what they are really doing would be addressed by the third proposal in the motion, which is to have splash warnings before entering filtered sites. Work by Professor Richard Wortley at University College London suggests that that might halve the numbers viewing child abuse online.
	Of course, those measures would have a cost to industry. TalkTalk, which has led the way in offering filters, has spent over £20 million. Some in the industry tell us that they do not want to lose their competitive edge, and some say that they do not want to act as censors. That is why the Government should act by putting a clear timetable for those reforms into law in order to speed up change, level the playing field and support parents. We know that most parents want to do what is right by their children, because 66% of people, and 78% of women, want an automatic block, according to a YouGov poll conducted last year, but the industry is not helping them enough. At the moment, some still require people to download their own filters—a near-impossible task for many of us—some see it as a marketing device, and others want to give the option of filters only to new customers. At the current rate of turnover, it would be 2019 before that approach had any hope of reaching total coverage. It simply is not good enough. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) wish to intervene?

Claire Perry: indicated dissent.

Helen Goodman: So what have the Government been doing? Before the general election, the Prime Minister promised that he would lead the most family-friendly Government ever, but so far there has been lots of
	talking and much less action. After three years and two Secretaries of State, the Government still seem to think that a voluntary approach will work. Do they not know when they are being strung along, or do they not care? How many more years must we wait? How many child deaths will it take to shock them into action?
	Let us look at the record. First, the Prime Minister set up the Bailey review, which reported in June 2011. It recommended that after 18 months the internet industry must, as a matter of urgency, act decisively to develop and introduce effective parental controls—with Government regulation if voluntary action is not forthcoming within a reasonable time scale—and robust age verification. But here we are, fully two years on, and nothing has changed. Contrary to the answer I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is in his place, the fact is that BT, Sky and Virgin are yet to come forward to announce their proposals on how they intend to deliver.
	Then we had the independent parliamentary inquiry into child protection online, an all-party group. It recommended an accelerated implementation timetable, a formal consultation on the introduction of an opt-in content filtering system, and that the Government should seek back-stop legal powers to intervene should the ISPs fail to implement an appropriate solution. A year later, no solution has been implemented. Why did the Government not introduce a communications Bill with appropriate measures in the Queen’s Speech?
	Finally, last autumn the Government undertook a consultation. It was so badly advertised that 68% of respondents were members of the Open Rights Group, an important group, but a lobbying group with 1,500 members, compared with the 34% of respondents who were parents of Britain’s 11 million children. Despite that, the Government concluded that parents did not want to see parental controls turned on by default.
	The Government have zig-zagged back and forth but we have seen no action in the real world. The Secretary of State has called a meeting with industry representatives next week. What will she say to them? I hope that she will not engage in yet another round of fruitless pleas and requests. There is a total lack of strategy from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
	I want to make an offer to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey): if he brings forward measures, with a speedy timetable, for the introduction of safe search as a default, robust age verification and splash warnings, we will support him. I gather that Ministers are urging their colleagues to vote against the motion. It is time that the Government stopped hoping that everything will turn out for the best and started taking responsibility. The time for talking is over. The time for action is now. We must put our children first. I hope that all hon. Members will vote for the motion in the Lobby this afternoon.

Edward Vaizey: The House finds itself today debating an incredibly important issue, and one that has risen in prominence because of the worst of circumstances. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) referred at the beginning
	of her speech to the dreadful murders of Tia Sharp and April Jones, which shocked the nation and saddened all who read about them. They reinforce the need to take action and maintain vigilance.
	This Government, and indeed the previous Government, take the continued availability of child sexual abuse images online extremely seriously. If I heard the hon. Lady correctly, she said that we should not refer to this as child pornography. She is quite right: it is child abuse, child torture and child rape. The creation of these images is abuse against a child, and that child is further violated every time the image is circulated and viewed by others. That is why the creation, distribution and viewing of child sexual abuse images is strictly prohibited in this country, and why we take action to stop it. We must take every possible step to prevent their production and distribution over the internet.
	We must work together on that. We must recognise that that means using industry, law enforcement and the charitable sector. I think that we have made considerable progress. Let me start by talking about the Internet Watch Foundation. Before the IWF was established in 1996, this country hosted around 18% of the known child sexual abuse content on the internet, which is absolutely shocking. Since 2003, the IWF, working with industry, has reduced that figure to less than 1%. We fully support and welcome the work done by the internet industry in the UK, which uses a list provided by the IWF to block images of child sexual abuse. Blocking has a real and tangible benefit, as it stops people inadvertently viewing the images and stops paedophiles arguing that they found the images accidentally.
	The IWF has a crucial role to play in the removal of these images from the internet. At the summit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called for next week, we will discuss what further measures we can take. It is right and proper that we look at the role and funding levels of the IWF, and at what more the industry can do in terms of its role and scope.

Madeleine Moon: The IWF does a fantastic job, but it can only do as good a job as the referrals it receives. When I speak to parents and children in my constituency, they do not know what to do. Often, the advice given to children is “Turn the computer off.” That will not help us to track down images and stop them coming in in the first place.

Edward Vaizey: I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution and pay tribute to her for the work that she does on these issues in this House and throughout the country. She is absolutely right. There is more we can do, and we need to look at a number of issues that will be raised at the summit next week.
	First, we need to discuss the funding of the IWF. I note the £1 million contribution that Google has made this afternoon. We will discuss with the IWF what kind of funding it needs and what funding needs to come from the industry to help it to do the work that it needs to do. Secondly, we need to discuss the IWF’s role in peer-to-peer file-sharing. It is all very well, and absolutely right, to clamp down on and block the sites that host these vile and disgusting images, but we need to do more work on the activities of peer-to-peer networks where people are sharing them.
	This involves the complex issue of how the IWF works with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. We have to clear the lines on that. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to international work. We, as a Government, support the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online, which covers more than 40 countries. Both CEOP and the IWF work internationally, and it is extremely important to focus on that work. We can be proud of our success in this regard, but, as she rightly points out, the problem remains one of images posted abroad.

Geraint Davies: Does the Minister agree that images of women being raped in pornography should also be illegal and banned from the internet?

Edward Vaizey: The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are looking very closely at that issue, which has been debated recently. It is right that my colleagues in the relevant Departments look to see what action it is appropriate to take.
	CEOP works with UK police forces, which carry out excellent work in tracking down and arresting the owners of sites within the UK and rescuing and safeguarding the children who are subject to abuse. We will continue to support and promote the work of CEOP. It is important to note that the number of people working there has increased from 85 in 2010 to 130 now. CEOP is now a command within the National Crime Agency, and this will build on its success and allow it to work closely with other commands to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded. CEOP receives important support, in the form of a skills resource, from the business sector, including Microsoft, BAE Systems Detica and Visa, as well as children’s charities such as the NSPCC. At next week’s summit we will discuss what further resources we can bring to bear for CEOP, especially in terms of support from businesses that can bring particular skill sets to help it to carry out its work. As I said, we will also discuss with CEOP its close co-operation and work with the IWF.

Stella Creasy: I am pleased to hear the Minister being positive about the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). I hope that the summit will be a very productive discussion. End Violence Against Women has come up with a specific proposal on how to tackle the production of so-called rape porn, both online and offline. Can the Minister confirm that that will also be on next week’s agenda so that it can be talked through with businesses and then inform the discussions between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice?

Edward Vaizey: We will certainly look at what we need to include on the agenda. The summit has to focus on what internet companies can do to help us to tackle not only child abuse images but the exposure of children to online pornographic content. If there are comments to be made that would inform the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, we will make sure that that happens.
	We need to focus on closer co-operation between the IWF and CEOP and on resource from industry to help the IWF to do its work. There should be greater focus on peer-to-peer networks, and a clear strategy to increase our international work, which is already taking place.
	As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, there is a clear distinction between illegal child abuse images and age-inappropriate content.

Glyn Davies: I must apologise because I am speaking in a Welsh Grand Committee later and will miss part of this debate, which is particularly important to my constituency and has become hugely important to me due to the impact in Montgomeryshire following what has happened. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that Coral and Paul Jones, the parents of April Jones, should have an opportunity to express their views to Government at one level; we need to discuss exactly where it should be.

Edward Vaizey: I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says and will happily discuss with him what he thinks should be the appropriate way of ensuring that that takes place.
	In protecting our children from online pornography, the Government are making a huge effort to minimise the harm that is caused by being exposed to age-inappropriate content. As the Minister with responsibility for the communications sector, I see the headlines that call for greater action from our biggest internet companies. I support those calls. We want more action because there are few more important issues than protecting children as they interact online. Let us be clear: the internet can be an amazing force for good. However, information available on the internet can also drive harm. Mobile phone operators, internet service providers, search engines and social media companies do act to protect children online, and I will come to some of the measures that have been developed through Government and industry co-operation.

Diane Abbott: The Minister refers to age-inappropriate online pornography. Does he really understand what children as young as eight are viewing, does he know that the average age of a young man viewing hard-core porn online has dropped to eight, and is he aware of the social and psychological harm that stems from viewing those types of images?

Edward Vaizey: It is really important during this debate to make the point that everyone wants to see what we can do to minimise this harm. It is not appropriate to suggest that Ministers are not aware of the issues and do not want to act. [Interruption.] Nor is it appropriate to heckle me as I come on to setting out the points that I am here to set out. We need to work across Parliament. Members of the public will want to see cross-party action to tackle these issues.

Emily Thornberry: What are you going to do, then?

Edward Vaizey: I will tell the hon. Lady what I am going to do if she stops heckling me from the Front Bench. This is the kind of conduct that the Opposition seek to bring to the debate.
	Since 2008, the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, set up by the previous Government, has brought together industry, charities, law enforcement and academia to focus on developing measures to keep children safe
	online. In October 2011, under the auspices of UKCCIS, and under this Government, the internet service providers developed a voluntary code of practice on the implementation of internet parental controls. A year on, the biggest four internet providers met their commitment to offer parental internet controls to new customers. Now, in a further step, the biggest five have committed to delivering whole home, network-level parental control tools by the end of this year. That will allow parents to set, with one click, parental controls on all devices in the home.
	When we began these discussions with ISPs, they told us that that was not technically possible, so we have moved a huge way forward. Making it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material was a Bailey recommendation and that has been achieved. Network-level filters for domestic broadband was also a recommendation of the independent parliamentary inquiry into online child protection.

John Mann: The Minister has highlighted the success with the five ISPs. How does that compare with agreements reached in other countries in Europe and the United States?

Edward Vaizey: We can hold our heads high as being far more advanced than many other countries around the world. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with details of what other countries are doing and where we rank compared with them. It is also important to point out that those five ISPs cover the vast majority of customers using the internet at home.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that we have not implemented the recommendations of the Bailey review, but I remind her that this Government set up that review because of this Prime Minister’s passion to protect children from the sexualisation of society. As Reg Bailey himself said in his recently published review of progress:
	“I have been pleased to see that many parts of industry have risen to the challenge”
	and that good progress has been made against his recommendations.
	Bailey called for greater transparency in the regulatory framework through the creation of a single website for regulators. ParentPort, launched in 2011, is a single website, created by media regulators, through which parents can complain about inappropriate material. Bailey also called for a reduction in on-street advertising containing sexualised imagery that is likely to be seen by children, and the Advertising Standards Authority has issued guidelines on the use of such images in outdoor advertising. He also recommended restricting the employment of children as brand ambassadors and ensuring that magazines and newspapers with sexualised images on the cover are not sold in easy sight of children and that the content of pre-watershed TV programming better meets parents’ expectations.
	Those recommendations and others have been met. Of course, that is not to say that every recommendation has been met in full. There is still work to do on, for example, online music videos.

Stella Creasy: The Bailey review also pointed out that, as much as we must try to adapt to many of the ways in which technology is changing, no filter or
	technology can compensate for parents and teachers giving positive examples. Yesterday the House had an opportunity to make sure that sensitive discussion of issues such as sexual consent, equality and respect in relationships was on the agenda, so is the Minister disappointed that his Government voted against putting sexual consent in the curriculum in a way that would allow young people to get training and advice on how to tackle these issues and let us build a filter in their heads about them, too?

Edward Vaizey: This issue was debated fully in the House yesterday and there are two Education Ministers present—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) and my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. As the hon. Lady knows, sex and relationships education is compulsory in secondary schools. We trust teachers, who are best placed to provide the appropriate advice, guidance and support to children in their schools. Teachers who teach sex education follow the statutory guidance laid out by the Education Secretary, but we do not believe it is right to remove the ability of parents to withdraw their children from sex education at any key stage, as the Opposition advocate.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in sex and relationships education, particularly in primary schools, more guidance needs to be given on the age-appropriateness of the material? I know that he has already taken some steps to improve that, but what more can he do to make sure that children receive age-appropriate information?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which she has campaigned on in this House. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done. We are introducing classification not just for music videos, but for DVDs used in schools for sex education. I will continue to have a dialogue with my hon. Friend on other appropriate measures. [Interruption.] The sneezing of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is appropriate, because she was a member of the panel for the independent parliamentary inquiry into online child protection—as was the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland—to which I now turn.
	I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). My involvement in these important issues started with an Adjournment debate that she had secured, during which I said that I wanted to hold discussions and work with her to make progress. She decided that it was appropriate to set up an inquiry, which had my full support and which, I am pleased to say, was a cross-party inquiry, with Members from all the main parties on its panel. Since my hon. Friend set up that parliamentary inquiry, not only has it come up with some sensible recommendations, which I will turn to in a moment, but I am also delighted that she has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s adviser. Although I pay tribute to many hon. Members, I am sure that most would agree that my hon. Friend has taken a fantastically prominent role in this debate, that she has moved it forward in leaps and bounds and that she is a fantastic advocate for more action in this area.

Graeme Morrice: The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points, but will he clarify whether the Government intend to support the Opposition motion?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is not in his place, pointed out how late this motion came to the House. As I have said, it is hard to support a motion that claims that the police lack resources when I have already pointed out that CEOP has significantly increased its manpower; that claims that the Government have failed to implement the Bailey review when I have already pointed out how many of the recommendations we have introduced; and that claims that we have not supported the independent parliamentary inquiry when we supported it from the start and have followed a lot of its recommendations.
	The Opposition can decide whether they want to play politics with this issue or whether they want to have a serious debate about how to make progress. They cannot table a tendentious motion such as this and expect us to support it. What I am doing in this speech—and what other Government Members will do in theirs—is raising and addressing important issues, as some Opposition Members have done, and saying what the Government are doing.

Claire Perry: Does my hon. Friend share my almost despair that, while some Members present, such as the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), have been intimately involved in this agenda for two and a half years, others who are heckling and shouting from a sedentary position have, to be frank, shown no interest whatsoever in this topic until it became a front-page issue? Working together will solve the problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a terrible and dangerous example of bandwagonism?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend is an authority on this issue and she has shown, throughout her engagement with it, her willingness to work across party lines and to look for practical solutions that will help keep our children safe. I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what she has just said and take it on board.

Geraint Davies: Does the Minister agree—I know that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) supports me in this—that credit card companies should be made accountable and perhaps face penalties if they are complicit in the downloading of child abuse images through online transactions, particularly those under £50 that can be facilitated by anonymous credit cards that can be accessed by children as well? Does he agree that the Government need to bring credit card companies to account and stop this abuse?

Edward Vaizey: That is very important. As I have mentioned, Visa plays a role with CEOP. No credit card company would say that it was actively encouraging or supporting people to download images of child abuse. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, he should bring them to my attention. The credit card companies have an important and helpful role to play on this issue and many others, including piracy, and we must continue to work with them.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister will know that many Members from all parts of the House have been interested in online safety for young people for a long time. Does he agree that it is slightly
	perverse that this country has legislation that gives courts the power to order ISPs or websites to remove material that is defamatory or that contravenes copyright, but no powers for the courts to deal with serious issues such as online child pornography or incitement to violence, which have a devastating impact on people’s lives?

Edward Vaizey: Companies that use the law to block sites that support pirated material seek an injunction through pre-internet copyright law. As has always been the case, what is illegal offline is also illegal online. People can therefore use existing law to attack sites. As I have said, the Internet Watch Foundation does block access to sites that host child abuse images.

Julian Huppert: The Minister is making a powerful case. Does he agree that it is somewhat misleading to imply that we have no powers to deal with such sites? In 2012, every one of the 73 UK webpages that hosted child pornography was removed within four days, and the vast majority within 60 minutes, of the IWF being notified.

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I must make progress because a lot of people want to speak on this issue.
	We have responded to many of the recommendations of the independent parliamentary inquiry. For example, the report called for filtered public wi-fi. Through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, the Government have secured a commitment from the main public wi-fi providers that they will offer family-friendly wi-fi in public places where children are likely to use it.
	I am conscious of the time, so I will wrap up with a number of key points. On child abuse images, we will work with the industry to secure appropriate funding for the IWF. We will work with the IWF on its peer-to-peer and international work. We will also work with CEOP and the IWF to ensure that their work is co-ordinated effectively. We have made huge progress on protecting children from inappropriate content online. New customers are now provided with filters that are in place when they first access the internet. ISPs regularly contact existing customers through e-mails and on their bills to tell them about internet filters. On age verification, ISPs are bringing in closed-loop e-mails so that when the filters are changed in a home, an e-mail is sent to the account holder and, therefore, to the adult. I hear the point about splash pages and it is worth debating. It is important to analyse whether that would be an effective change.
	I will make one wider point in conclusion. When I held a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and other hon. Members some years ago, about 80 Members turned up from across the political divide. All of them, from the über-libertarians to the ultra-authoritarians, wanted action. We have made progress. The ISPs and others should be in no doubt about the mood of this House. If not enough is done, legislation will be required. We must get the message across to them that this is not something on which they should consider the competitive advantage, but something on which they have to work together and co-operate. They must work together on issues such as publicity and education for parents.
	The summit that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has called next week is an important staging post. I pay tribute to everyone in the House who has campaigned on this issue, because they have pushed it up the agenda. The people who can make a difference have been left in no doubt that no amount of weasel words or hiding behind technical obfuscation will stop this House taking the action that is needed to protect our children and clamp down on child abuse images.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Many Members wish to speak, so I am introducing a time limit of eight minutes.

Fiona O'Donnell: I usually open my remarks by saying that I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in a debate. Today, I do not have that feeling. I raised my children in an age when we did not have to worry about the issues under discussion and when protecting children was far more straightforward, but I am conscious that my grandchildren are growing up in a very different world. I congratulate the shadow Culture, Media and Sport team for ensuring that we have the opportunity to discuss this matter.
	I give credit, as many Members will, to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) for her contribution. However, I think that she should reflect on her remarks about “bandwagonism”. This is the first time that I have spoken in a debate on this issue. She does not know what personal experiences other Members of the House might have had that make it difficult for them to make contributions on this issue, so she should be careful in her choice of words. I have worked with children who are victims of abuse, some of whom were subjected to pornographic images. Sadly, some of them even went on to sexually harm other children. I should not have to justify to her my right to stand here as a Member of Parliament, a parent, a grandmother and someone who has worked in child protection.

Claire Perry: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. May I extend the offer that has been open for almost three years to every Member of this House who feels that they can help push this agenda forward to please share their experiences and be involved? Please do not make this a partisan issue, because when we do that, industry drives a bus through Parliament. That is what we must avoid.

Fiona O'Donnell: I would have welcomed more of an indication of regret from the hon. Lady at the words that she used. If she had experience of working in child protection, she would know that those words should be used very carefully.
	I welcome the Minister’s comment that this issue is about much more than just child protection and includes child abuse. Sadly, in this day and age, it is also a matter of life and death. Fortunately, children can and do use the internet safely, and we must not lose sight of that.
	Although I might not have been active on this issue in the House, I have been in my constituency. Last Friday, I went to Burgh primary school in Musselburgh, where the children recently took part in a competition to talk
	about and devise ways of keeping themselves safe when using the internet. That is a great example of how we can empower children. I do not want children to be frightened of using the internet. It is an incredible resource that allows them to socialise, learn, have fun and access entertainment. We must be clear that we do not want to put children off. At Burgh primary school, I saw children being empowered to keep themselves safe. They even taught me a few lessons about how I could be safer. The head teacher and Mrs Gilbert, who leads the IT group, have the children running the school website. That is a great way to show children that the internet is a tool that could be useful to them at any point in their life and, at the same time, to ensure that they are aware of the risks.
	Ofcom recently released figures showing that 91% of five to 15-year-olds have access to the internet at home. On average, they access the internet for about 90 minutes a day. A survey of 851 young children in 2012 by the ChildLine website also provided some interesting information. It was clear that what children really enjoyed was the fun, games, information and opportunities for social networking that they could access. What really concerned me, however—I hope the Minister or a Front-Bench Member will respond to this point—was that the survey showed that 69% of children are now accessing the internet through mobile phones, making it far more difficult for parents to supervise what they are saying and how they are interacting. I would be interested to hear whether the Government have any proposals for how we can deal with mobile phone companies and keep children safe, given that that is the way they are increasingly accessing the internet.
	We all know horrific stories of bullying and of children accessing inappropriate material, and I have seen first hand through my work the impact that can have on children’s lives, development and their ability to become parents. I remember one child saying to me, “Fiona, I don’t think I should be a parent.” He had suffered such horrific abuse and seen such awful images that at the age of 10, this boy did not think he should be trusted to be a parent. We are discussing the most serious issues of children’s right to a childhood and a healthy adulthood.
	We must do more to protect children, and this debate has caused me to reflect on an experience that I had around the age of 16—this was before the age of computers, certainly in the highlands of Scotland. I was getting ready for bed one night and I suddenly caught sight out of my bedroom window of a flashing light. I realised there was a man in the kitchen that overlooked my bedroom who had been watching me undress, and he was flicking the light to let me know that he was doing that. This is the first time I have ever shared that experience, because at the age of 16 I was too scared to tell anyone. I thought I had done something wrong; I was scared to tell my parents. My father had warned me that I should shut my bedroom curtains when getting ready for bed, and I was scared that he might go down and confront the man, or that my father—a very peace-loving man—might be hurt. I just did not feel I could do that, and I lived in fear for many months that the man was going to approach me or tell people what he had seen. We must remember just how difficult it is for young people to tell their stories—it has taken me until the age of 53 to tell that story.
	The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children supports many of the recommendations in the motion, in particular having an opt-in option so that adults must choose if they wish to access adult material. That is the stage we have reached. I am no Mary Whitehouse, but I think we have reached a stage where so many children are at risk that we must do more.

Alun Cairns: I accept the hon. Lady’s thrust of where we need to get to. However, with such a relatively simplistic approach to an opt-in, how would we overcome encryption methods that would simply get around that?

Fiona O'Donnell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I confess that that is well beyond my level of knowledge. In this day and age we must at least challenge the issue, and I am grateful that the Government have called a summit next week, which will be a great opportunity. I hope we give a clear steer and that there will be time scales for internet service providers as well. I confess freely to the hon. Gentleman that I do not have the answer to his question, but we must set that challenge and tell the sector that it must get its house in order. It is clear that we must do more.
	Not so long ago, we in this House took the decision to make it illegal to carry a child in a car without them being safely secured in an appropriate way. At this time I think there is a greater risk to children’s safety from accessing the internet than from getting into a car, and if we can intervene in such circumstances that will be absolutely in order. It is early in the debate but I am glad that so far we have not heard talk of the nanny state. We must act on this matter to keep children safe.

Madeleine Moon: When I went into schools around Bridgend I took two leaflets—one for parents and one for children—about staying safe online. They were seen by Dr Tanya Byron, and agreed with Google and local head teachers so that the content was accurate. It was clear that parents did not have the technical savvy; their children were wiser than them and knew how to remove the constraints, which is why we need such constraints put in place by providers rather than by parents. Children can remove their parent’s constraints.

Fiona O'Donnell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; children are often well ahead of the adults who are supervising them. I do not know whether the Government have any plans to involve children in the summit and this process. Children were part of the consultation, but what opportunities will the Government provide to allow them to be part of the debate? When I went into a local primary school I found that the children’s knowledge was well in advance of mine, and from my experience as a parent I know that children can be canny in finding ways round things that we are perhaps not aware of—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Claire Perry: I am grateful, as always, for the chance to speak in and listen to a debate in the House on this incredibly important topic, and I will not focus on the unfortunate partisan tone of some of the proposals. I would love to support the motion, and if it had been better worded or perhaps more accurate it would have been easier to do so.
	I want to respond specifically to some of the criticisms raised in the motion and refute them absolutely. Criticism has been made of the implementation of the Bailey review recommendations, and those of the parliamentary inquiry in which I was joined by more than 60 Members from across this House and from the other place including—as I have said—two hon. Ladies from the Labour Benches and several of my colleagues from the Government Benches. The inquiry came up with a series of recommendations. In 2011, the Bailey review recommended active choice in which parents have to choose whether they want filters, as well as more help for parents. The four main fixed-line internet service providers control 80% of the home internet market—this relates to a point raised earlier. They signed a code of practice to offer such a filter, and said they would roll it out within a year by October 2012. That deadline was met, but as many Members will remember, a cross-party group of MPs and peers did not feel that it was adequate or went far enough.

David Burrowes: I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend who has championed this cause in the House, including in an Adjournment debate back in November 2010, which also coincided with the Safermedia conference. She has been raising the issue of harm related to pornography, and making the point that it is not just a fringe issue for one campaign organisation but a concern shared across the House. That momentum has helped to drive these changes, which will continue, and we do not need to resort to partisanship.

Claire Perry: I came to this agenda as a mother, a feminist and someone who is deeply concerned about the long-term social experiment we are conducting with our young children. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said it was good that we had an atheist leftie on the panel as that helped balance out some of the others, and it truly was a coalition of many minds coming together—I hope that will not be depicted in Hansard as an accurate description.
	Another recommendation of the cross-party inquiry was for internet service providers to introduce account filters that protect all devices in the home with one click. Only four out of 10 parents in the country have installed device-level protection of any sort on their home computers. That is completely unacceptable, but the situation is complicated. We all have multiple internet-enabled devices and it is simply not good enough to say that consumers are stupid. We called on internet service providers to introduce one-click filtering on the home network, but as the Minister said, we were told by more than one ISP that that was technically impossible. Guess what? They are all going to implement it by the end of the year as a testament to the ongoing campaigning of this House.

Nadhim Zahawi: Is the real problem with the motion a conflation between the legal and the illegal, and is my hon. Friend worried that those on the Opposition Front Benches are getting this completely wrong? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) tweeted that we should introduce filters for child abuse, but surely child abuse
	should be dealt with by the law. Paedophiles should be taken to prison and targeted by the police, working with internet service providers. My hon. Friend is doing the right thing by looking at the issue carefully and in real detail.

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have two separate buckets. Some imagery is unequivocally illegal, but we would find other imagery exceptionally unpalatable and not want our young people to see it. Given that 88% of mainstream porn involves violence against women, we need to improve the filters to try to stop that coming into the home.
	Another recommendation of the cross-party inquiry was that public wi-fi should be filtered. There is no need to see adult content on public wi-fi. That has been implemented in the majority of cases and we are looking for universal clean public wi-fi to be implemented later this year.

Ann Coffey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her work and on the huge contribution she has made. Has she had any discussions with the retail industry on public wi-fi?

Claire Perry: I have not, but retailers source their wi-fi from a small number of providers, which have agreed to provide what is effectively clean public wi-fi.
	We asked the Government for a formal consultation on opt-in filtering and got it. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has rightly said, it is not clear that the consultation was entirely representative and democratic. However, it was an open consultation and we did our damndest to encourage people to respond. Consultations are not always democratic, and that one was what it was. Basically, the consultation rejected the idea of opt-in, but the Government response was clear that we should have much better filters that protect all devices; robust age verification; and a system that people cannot simply click through, and in which the filters remain on unless people choose to take them off.
	Those changes are being implemented by the four main ISPs, which control more than 80% of the internet market to the home in the UK, and will be rolled out to new customers by the year end.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Claire Perry: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will try to make progress before taking another intervention.
	In addition, as the Minister has said, the ISPs are trialling ways in which to get the filter into the installed base. The sea change in attitude among the ISPs—British companies that are family-friendly trusted brands and want to sell us stuff—has been enormous. That is a tribute to all hon. Members and Members of the other place who have campaigned so hard. The change in the situation is like night and day.
	The second problem with the motion is that the call for the Government to set a timetable for the introduction of safe-search as a default is confusing. That is the same proposal as mandatory opt-in—it refers simply to Google SafeSearch functionality. The Internet Watch Foundation pointed out to me this morning that that proposal would only screen out material that is sexual in nature,
	and that anyone seeking illegal child abuse imagery would simply switch it off. That is an important debate, but a slightly different one.
	We are already focusing on age verification. The industry is testing much better age verification loops and splash pages. Splash pages alert people who are searching for blocked content that it is illegal and damaging, and that they should go somewhere else to look for help. There is widespread support for that proposal on both sides of the House.
	Should we legislate further? As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland knows, I am not at all averse to calling for legislation, but my sense is that, in this space, it is not helpful. Let me explain why. To make protection work, we need three things. First, we need committed politicians who are completely clear on the ask for industry. Secondly, we need engaged companies. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) referred to one problem with legislation. Children now access the internet via mobile phone, but when the Bailey review came out in 2010, there was only one mention of access to the internet via smartphone. The technological world changes faster than we can possibly imagine. It is a falsehood to say that clunky politicians and—forgive me—civil servants can be ahead of that change, as opposed to the companies that monetise that change. We have to get the companies engaged. Thirdly, we need to educate users—parents, grandparents and children—which is why I welcome what has been done in the primary school curriculum to improve e-safety and digital safety.
	Therefore, it is depressing that the motion has been presented in a partisan way. We have a hugely productive agenda in the House for the past two years by working together. I believe that debates such as this one encourage industry to adopt a wait-and-see strategy, and to say, “Well look, the politicians cannot decide. Unless they make things illegal, we’re not going to engage.” That has been the problem with the internet all along. The industry has said, “We’ll wait till you tell us what is illegal, and that’s as much as we will do.” We must move beyond that situation, which we will do by working together.
	I have one final point to make. The House will forgive me if I come across as a politician—I do not want to be a politician on this issue; I want to be a pragmatist. Our recommendations go so much further than the Byron recommendations, which were commissioned by the Government of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. Those recommendations used toothless language, did not require any form of legislation, and were not well implemented. They were also based on a completely false ideology that default filters would lull parents into a false sense of security. There is no evidence of that, but the thought has permeated the debate for the past four years. Hon. Members can tell me if they believe that these two of the Byron recommendations are forward thinking or appropriate, or whether they do more than what we have proposed. The first recommendation is that search engines should make it easy to turn safe search on, and the second is that parents should be given free parental controls when they get a new internet connection. Our Government, with huge cross-party support, have done far more than that and made far more progress.
	I encourage the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion, to ask to come to the summit next week, and to build a cross-party consensus on the asks. That is how we will make progress and keep our children safe online.

John Mann: I do not profess any specific expertise, but if I have any, it is in relation to the work done on hate crime on the internet. I congratulate the Minister on his work with us. I also congratulate his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), and Barbara Follett, who is no longer a Member of the House, on their initiatives. All have been effective, and are appreciated.
	I initiated a working group in the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism two years ago. We have managed to get senior executives for content from most of the world’s biggest internet companies to sit on the group, including executives from Apple, Google, Facebook, PayPal, Microsoft and Twitter. We also have one of the key interlocutors in the US on free speech, Professor Jeffrey Rosen, and, from the Ministry of Justice, the seconded Association of Chief Police Officers lead on hate crime, Paul Giannasi.
	A report has been produced—it has not yet been circulated, but will be in the next week in this country and throughout the world—that the Minister and the Government will find useful. The report is on the problem of hate crime, but the problem is the same as online protection of children in respect of the grey areas that need to be tightened, the technical solutions and approaches, and the mindset in the industry.
	Part of the problem the group has identified is the shadow internet. It is fine setting up solutions, but if that happens in separate countries, people will break them if they want to—they have relatively easy ways to do so. The debate so far has concentrated on websites and search engines, but, in fact, even when it comes to child abuse, gaming is as big a problem and a vastly growing one. Texting, smartphones and social networking are equally significant, growing and changing problems—the modality is changing.
	The group makes six recommendations in the report on hate crime—they are relevant to the debate. The first recommendation is to create clear policies and include them within the terms of the service of the internet company. That would be a significant change. The working group has the key players and the decision makers—they are not the sub-decision makers, but the actual decision makers. That recommendation is achievable, and it would be significant.
	The second recommendation is for mechanisms to enforce those policies. How do intermediaries, including national Governments, enforce them? For international industries, the role of intermediaries, whether they are specialist groups or national Governments, is a second key principle in the approach that should be taken.
	The third and vital recommendation, which resonates with this debate, is to establish clear, user-friendly processes to allow users to report abuse. Those processes are not currently there, but they are achievable. If mechanisms are in place, progress ought to be relatively straightforward—far more straightforward in relation to child abuse than hate speech, where issues of illegality are far more complex—where there is criminality. Clearly,
	there are technical solutions—I will not go so far as to suggest the software that the CIA has recently, allegedly, used—if the processes are in place.
	The fourth recommendation is to increase transparency about terms of service enforcement decisions: case studies. For example, if an individual is prosecuted because someone has reported something that their child has stumbled across, the Government and other third parties have a critical role in how it will be reported and made public.
	The fifth recommendation, which is probably specific to hate speech, is to encourage counter-speech. It is the same concept as the splash concept.
	The sixth recommendation is to unite the industry. The industry will not always be American—with its concepts of free speech—so it is critical to achieve agreement within the industry while it still is.

Tim Loughton: If I can bring the hon. Gentleman back to the third recommendation, he makes a good point about reporting and taking down material. The IWF does a good job in that area. Apparently, last year 1.5 million adults came across abusive content on the internet, but only 40,000 reports were made to IWF, which has the powers to do something about it. There needs to be much greater publicity on how to report to ensure that action can take place.

John Mann: Publicity on how to do so and technical ease of use in doing so, so that the democratic internet world can hit back effectively and the industry can be monitored, is key. The key members of the working group who really know what they are talking about would be more than happy to meet the Minister, if he would find that useful. We could bring them over from the US.
	To get access to the right people, I went to meet industry leaders in their headquarters in California, and I made the point that their brands were in danger. If the users and third parties, albeit national Governments, can show successes in prosecutions, the industry will throw far more resources at the issue. The industry does throw at lot of resources at it. A third of all Facebook employees are dealing with it, because the dangers to its brand are so fundamental, but at the moment it is less of an issue for other companies. They do see the dangers to their brand, however, which is why senior people from PayPal now turn up to meetings.
	I intervened on the Minister—it was not a hostile intervention—on agreements in other countries. One danger is that different countries will do different things. Of course, that is not an excuse for any Government to hold back, but the French Government are taking various legal actions against some of the key internet giants, as are the Italians, and there is a danger that the approach will become too bitty. May I suggest to the Minister that he try to up the stakes and achieve European Union consensus from Britain’s lead? If Britain is ahead of the rest of the European Union, that is a good opportunity to set the standards that others can push up to and take forward. That would be pragmatic and significant. We attack the industry—I am happy to attack the industry in various ways—but it does not
	want terrorists using its platforms to kill people and it does not want paedophiles using their products to abuse children. That is obvious to me and it is also obvious to the industry.

Geraint Davies: Some years ago when I first came across Twitter, I tracked a few people who were following various trends and discovered an image of a man who had been beheaded. I wondered then about the extent to which Twitter could be used as a route into child abuse and what should be done about it.

John Mann: I am pleased to say that Twitter participates in the working group that I have managed to initiate. The issues are complex, but all these issues are complex. Last night, I went on to the internet using a mobile device to seek the speech made by the Rev. Leslie Hardman when he went into Belsen concentration camp in 1945. I was immediately content blocked. These issues are not all straightforward, but some outcomes are exceedingly obvious and straightforward. I put it to the Minister that the industry and politicians have a mutual interest. That is the industry’s vulnerability. Finding the tools to expose those who refuse to participate properly and effectively is the key to real progress. If the Minister united the industry around that in Europe, he would make a phenomenal mark. My working group would be delighted to provide any help that it can.

Alun Cairns: This is an extremely important debate, which deserves wide and thorough consideration in this House. It is right that in recent years much attention has been given to this subject. I pay tribute to the Minister for the way he has responded to the debate, to the Prime Minister for the interest he has shown, and to his adviser, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who has driven the agenda from quite an early stage and to whom credit should be given.
	It is also important to give credit to the press, which has fed back persistently and consistently on this subject. I have no doubt that the Daily Mail’s campaign and active interest has contributed to encouraging politicians’ attention on to something that is obviously very important to the public in general, and, dare I say it, to its readers.
	I must say, however, that the motion, as it is phrased, is not very helpful. It conflates child sexual abuse content, which is illegal, and adult content which is legal but from which we need to protect children. The actions needed to tackle these different types of content are different and it is very unhelpful to confuse and conflate the two.
	This is one of the most dynamic problems we face as a society. As soon as one issue seems to have been dealt with, another problem emerges. That is the nature of today’s fast moving society, but this area of policy is certainly at the leading edge of the speed of change. Technology is developing faster than any Government can legislate, and avoidance measures lead to anti-avoidance measures, which in turn go on in a cycle. This throws up the risk of Members and individuals believing that there are straightforward solutions. That is not the case, and I pay tribute to the Government for stating on the record that their policies will develop. That is the pragmatic approach we need to take. We need to develop clear
	principles: focusing on helping parents to introduce safety features; offering a choice of filters available from internet service providers; prompting parents towards security features; making it easier for parents to take charge; challenging the industry, which is exceptionally important; and working with law enforcement organisations to combat illegal content.

Jim Shannon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such a balanced contribution. He will be aware that many companies have a zero-tolerance policy on child sexual abuse. One of those companies is Google, which helps fund and is a member of the IWF. Does he think it is now time that companies that are not members of the IWF joined and helped to fund it and adhered to its policies and principles?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the IWF—I should declare an interest as one of its champions—and would encourage all the industry to join and support its greater funding in the way that Google announced earlier today.
	Before the Government’s welcome statement in response to their consultation on the debate over opting in and opting out of adult content, we ran the risk of presenting the situation as one that was relatively simple and where responsibility to protect ourselves could be conveniently passed over to others—for example, to ISPs. In reality, it is not that straightforward; it is far more complicated, and that is my issue with the motion, which, rather than helping, confuses the subject. Thankfully, however, the evidence to the consultation was clear.
	I pay tribute to Reg Bailey, the chief executive officer of the Mothers’ Union, who recognised that complexity, against the general direction of the debate at the time and against those calling for a simple opt in/opt out approach—or an appropriate variant of it. A filter not only passes responsibility from parents to large organisations, whose judgments might be completely different from those of individual families, but makes false promises, because of the avoidance measures I mentioned earlier. Encryption, for example, is a typical problem that an ISP filter would not overcome, but a parent would not necessarily understand that.
	At the moment, about 30% of customers choose to have an ISP opt-out. If the policy was reversed—so that people had to opt into adult content—the proportion would likely be much higher, which would run the risk of legal adult content providers using common avoidance techniques, such as encryption or proxy servers, which create further problems. Web proxies, which are a more recent development, and peer-to-peer networks are also not covered by ISP-level filters, but, believing their household computer to be safe, parents would be led into a false sense of security.

Fiona Mactaggart: Would the hon. Gentleman not admit that some of these measures would make it safer for the average parent than the present situation?

Alun Cairns: I am coming to that very point. Challenges remain, but the last thing we want to do is create the impression that this is a simple issue and that children and families can be protected at the flick of a switch; it is much more complicated than that and deserves an intelligent debate. We need to recognise the differences
	in these areas, rather than giving the impression, as some Members have, that the flick of a switch will make the difference. An ISP filter would be oblivious to the very risks from which we need to protect children. Furthermore, such filters would not protect against bullying, grooming or other serious risks, but at the same time they would give parents a false sense of security.
	One of the most effective answers—there will be several answers, and filters have a part to play, but they are not the only solution—is for a parent to show a genuine interest in what is being viewed online. I am pleased that the debate over the past year or so has focused the minds of technology providers on making device-level and even profile-level security features and filters easier to use and understand. Google has its SafeSearch, for example, while Windows 8 has made significant steps: it can e-mail parents a list of all the sites viewed by a householder so that they can check themselves what the child has been looking at. Furthermore, now when someone signs up to an ISP or sets up a new router, they are asked what settings they want, not only for the household, but for each computer. It needs to go even further, however, down to profile level, because the same computer can be used by different people. It is important, therefore, that we have the right profile filter settings to protect the children using the computer. Clearly, technology companies need to do more to communicate that message and help parents further.
	My comments so far have related to legal adult content, but we would all agree that the far more serious issues surround illegal content, particularly that involving the abuse of children—the area on which most of the recent public debate has focused. It is extremely important that we distinguish between legal and illegal content. This should not be a party political issue and there are no easy solutions. Some content might be distasteful, but might well be available on shelves of newsagents or shops in Soho.

Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alun Cairns: I am running short of time, but if the hon. Lady will allow me to make my point, I might answer her question.
	We need to recognise, however, that the policing of such shops is relatively straightforward and that in general children cannot access or stumble across such material. Appropriate filters should stop the “stumbling across” element, but that leaves us with the policing. We need to publicise the work of the IWF and reassure people who might report issues to it that they will not necessarily be compromised. Much attention is focused on search engine companies, and it is important that they play their part—they have a responsibility here—but having researched their activities, I am aware of some of the technology they use to identify illegal content. They can claim to be playing a part, therefore, but search engines need to be at the cutting edge of image analysis and coding—they need to be one step ahead of the perpetrators of these terrible offences.
	By focusing the debate on search engines, as some Members did earlier, we are forgetting that hosting is where the offence effectively lies. If a website has been scratched from the search engine, the URL still exists
	and those seeking to view illegal content can go straight to that address. The IWF, which has been mentioned several times—I welcome the extra money made available to it today—has made a huge difference. Some 1% of the content it removes from the internet is hosted in the UK; 54% is hosted in north America; 37% is hosted across the rest of Europe and Russia; the figure for Asia is only 1%; and for South America it is even smaller. Those are the issues. It is an international problem.

Jenny Chapman: I am pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate.
	It is clear that neither the Minister nor anyone else can solve this problem on their own, but the Government can take action to help protect children online. My particular concern centres on the unmonitored use of the internet by those whom we already know to have a history of sex offending. The Government’s consultation on parental internet control stated that it was looking into the best way of shielding children from harmful and adult content, including sites that exposed children to online sexual grooming. Most of the debate and consultation in this area has focused on restricting access to adult, pornographic and child abuse material, but in looking at the most serious threat—of grooming and sexual abuse—we need to be serious not just about the online content, but about online users and those with whom children come into contact online.
	In my maiden speech, I began with a few words about Ashleigh Hall, a young woman who lived in my constituency. When she was 17, she was murdered by a registered sex offender after she met him on Facebook. The 33-year-old offender used a fake identity, and for his profile took a picture of a younger man in order to start talking to and grooming Ashleigh. After she agreed to meet him, the offender posed as his internet personality’s father in order to pick her up, after which he abducted, raped and murdered her.
	This man had a history of violent sexual offences, including multiple charges of sexual assault, rape and kidnapping. He was known to be dangerous and was a registered sex offender, but although he and his home were registered and expected to be monitored, his internet use was not. He was under no obligation to register his online identities, and I have learned that any refusal to do so would have been met with no action whatever. The authorities had no idea what images he was looking at or who he was communicating with.
	We know that one quarter of 12 to 15-year-olds report using social networking sites to communicate with people they do not already know. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre receives more than 600 reports of grooming each month, yet as the situation stands, people we recognise as a serious threat to public safety are monitored in the community but not online, where they have as much access, if not perhaps more, to building relationships with young people and may pretend to be someone they are not.

Jim Shannon: One of the Labour party’s proposals refers to making extra resources available to the police to ensure that these things can be monitored. Could that have prevented that case from happening?

Jenny Chapman: It is very difficult to say what might have prevented this tragedy, but the Government need to look with some urgency at the power to monitor the internet use of people whom we know to be a threat to children.
	It is not acceptable for a known offender to have unmonitored online access in order to socialise with young people. I have raised this issue in the House before and asked the Government to make progress towards requiring sex offenders to register their online identities. Child protection and online safety will be significantly aided if that is a notification requirement for registered sex offenders as a matter of course, and if failure to do so is regarded with just as much seriousness as an offender failing to register the fact that they were living with young children. In 2011, the Government consulted on the prescribed information that offenders are expected to disclose, including increased notification requirements for foreign travel and living arrangements, and even changes to ensure that an offender could not avoid the register by changing their name, but the issue of online identification was not addressed.
	It is often repeated that parents must take the lead in protecting their children in online activity, and so they must. However, parents such as Ashleigh’s mum deserve to know that dangerous people who are already known to the police and authorities are not left with the unchecked freedom to groom further victims. We know who these people are, but false, manipulative online identities mean that young people such as Ashleigh do not know whom they are speaking to. Access to inappropriate material for young children is very concerning, but I expect that controlling it will be a constant battle, with technology inevitably outpacing the law. My suggestion is to make a simple change, which follows the accepted principles of existing requirements on registered offenders, but it could make all the difference to a family’s safety. I am glad that we are debating measures to protect young people online. I would simply ask that, as well as considering the broad safeguards that we seek to introduce, we also focus on the internet use of those whom we already know have a history of sexual offending.

Gary Streeter: I am pleased to take part in this debate. I congratulate the Labour party on calling it and using up one of their Supply days to raise a serious and important matter to us all.
	It seems that every great invention that we make as human beings brings both benefits and disbenefits. I think of the internal combustion engine, which led to the car, which gives us all great mobility but creates pollution and kills 3,500 of our citizens on the roads every year. Now we have the internet, which gives us amazing access to information and the ability to interact socially, but can allow access to all kinds of unsavoury and potentially harmful material. It is vital that we do a better job of protecting our children, and I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken so far.
	I have just two points to make in this debate. I do not pretend to be an expert and I certainly do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) in his technological knowledge. These points have been drawn to my attention by the British Board of
	Film Classification, which I would describe as a trusted and familiar friend to most of us, as we see its image before films. I think back to the first film I went to see, the James Bond film “Thunderball”, in 1965—obviously I was a baby.

Alun Cairns: What was the certificate?

Gary Streeter: I do not know what the certificate was, but may I just get on with my speech?
	My point is that we trust the BBFC’s classifications. When the Video Recordings Act 1984 was passed, more than 25 years ago, certain video works—I will come to online content in a second—were made exempt from classification because they were considered unlikely to be harmful. However, the content of exempt works has changed beyond recognition since 1984, which means that inappropriate and potentially harmful content can be legally supplied to children. On 24 May 2013, the Government announced that it planned to lower the exemptions threshold in order to prevent children from accessing potentially harmful material, so well done to the Government. This is a most welcome decision, for which the BBFC—along with the home entertainment industry, the recorded music industry, retailers and law enforcement bodies—had argued for some time.
	Once implemented, the decision will improve the protection that children enjoy from potentially harmful media content by ensuring that video content such as drug misuse, strong violence, racist language and certain sexual content can no longer legally be freely supplied to children. Instead, the BBFC will classify such content to keep it away from vulnerable and impressionable children. The Government have said that they hope to have the new regime in place by April 2014, and I very much hope—I know that the Minister is listening carefully—that the Government will keep to that timetable, which requires secondary legislation. However, the legislation has never covered online content, and there is now particular concern about the content of online music videos.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is making a good point about the Government’s welcome announcement. There is still a problem though, because although there is some classification of adult content and 18 video ratings in gaming now, auntie Mabel who buys a video for her grandchild at Christmas needs to be made absolutely aware of the severity of some of the content to which she might inadvertently be exposing her grandchildren. We need better information in the shops and on the part of retailers at the point of sale, so that she can ask whether she really wants her grandchildren to see that sort of content.

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am sure that those on the Front Bench have taken it on board, and no doubt the Minister will deal with it explicitly in winding up.
	The issue of online music videos, to which the Bailey report also referred, must be seriously considered. My attention was recently drawn to an online video made by a well known pop singer—I had not heard of her before, but never mind—which showed explicit shots of a young teenage girl, concerned about her body image, slitting her wrists in the bath. It is the video to a well
	known song—I remember hearing it in my house. Although it has a happy ending, I would argue that the graphic scenes in that video—which I am sure parents would allow their children to watch in a very relaxed way—are far too explicit and dangerous for young teenage children to watch. We all know that many of the children who follow these pop stars are very young and impressionable. At the very least, online videos should contain some kind of classification.
	The Government are rightly pressing the music industry voluntarily to adopt age-appropriate ratings for online music videos. In response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson) said:
	“The Government will now take action to: make sure that online music videos carry labels that show their age suitability, in order to protect children from harmful material; and make it even easier for parents to keep their children safe online, wherever they are and in whatever way they might access the internet.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 1263W.]
	The onus has therefore been placed on the music industry to come forward with a system that will work.
	The BBFC hopes to work with the recorded music industry towards the goal of achieving well understood and trusted age ratings and content advice for online music videos, as it has done successfully with the home entertainment industry in relation to other online videos. The BBFC has now rated more than 200,000 videos for online distribution by such companies as Walt Disney, 20th Century Fox, Paramount, Universal and Sony. BBFC ratings are used by platforms such as iTunes, Netflix, blinkbox, BT Vision and TalkTalk—some of which I had heard of.

Tim Loughton: Have you used any of them?

Gary Streeter: No, I have not used any of them.
	One obvious solution that the music industry could consider in response to the Government’s demands for age-appropriate ratings for online music videos would be to adopt BBFC classifications voluntarily online. Does the Minister agree that that would be a constructive way forward?
	My final point relates to user-generated content—UGC. Independent research from June 2011 shows that while the public believe that the internet brings greater choice, freedom and flexibility, the majority of viewers still consider it important to be able to check the suitability of the audio-visual content that they download, with 85% of the public considering it important to have consistent BBFC classifications available for video-on-demand content. The figure rises to 90% for parents of children under 16.
	However, it is amateur user-generated content such as that seen on YouTube that makes up the majority of video content online. This might feature content that is potentially harmful to children—I accessed the video to which I referred earlier through YouTube this morning—and it is presently unregulated. The BBFC and the Dutch regulator NICAM have together developed a tool for ordinary people to age-rate UGC across different countries and platforms. I hope that my technological friend to my right, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, will consider that a good thing.
	The tool is designed to enable those with responsibility for children to make fully informed viewing choices about non-professional content online. Through a single, simple, free-to-complete questionnaire, the tool instantaneously produces an age rating that can be shown on screen. The ratings can differ from country to country to reflect different national sensitivities and concerns over content. The tool is simple. It contains six questions about the content of the UGC, on behaviour, drugs, horror, language, sex and violence. Completing the questionnaire takes less than a couple of minutes. It also includes a facility for viewers to report content that, in their view, might be illegal. In the UK, such a report would go direct to the Internet Watch Foundation, about which much has been said this afternoon.
	The tool is also flexible. For instance, the questionnaire may be completed by those uploading content. Alternatively, it may be completed by those viewing the content online. The ratings can be linked to online filters. This new initiative will shortly be trialled by Mediaset in Italy, and the BBFC and NICAM are looking for trial partners elsewhere, including in the United Kingdom. This is an example of the kind of initiative that can make the online world safer for children, and it has been welcomed by the EU Commission’s Safer Internet Coalition. I very much hope that our Government will get behind this initiative to help parents and children to make better informed choices about user-generated content. As we have heard this afternoon, there is no silver bullet on this issue, but with such incremental advances, our children will be better protected.

Fiona Mactaggart: The motion rightly starts with the issue of child sex abuse, recent cases of which have caused so many of us such distress. I want to start by praising the brilliant work of the Internet Watch Foundation; like many other Members, I am one of its champions. I thank the EU for funding it, and I say to Google, “We’re glad you have increased the amount you give to the foundation, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want your taxes.”
	I want to focus on the second part of the motion, which considers the broader issue of child protection on the internet. We know that 90% of children live in homes that have internet access, and more than half of those children have internet access in their bedrooms. I got those figures from the report produced by the inquiry on which I was proud to serve with the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). It includes some excellent recommendations, and it has moved this agenda forward in an important way. She described me as fulfilling the need for a representative on that body from the leftie atheist end of the spectrum. We were able to put on the agenda an issue that had not been sufficiently addressed before. Since then, I have been thinking about how many children have internet access not only in their bedrooms but on the mobile devices in their pockets. I suggest that that applies to a substantial proportion of our children.

David Burrowes: This right-wing Christian served on the inquiry along with that left-wing atheist. Does the hon. Lady agree that the momentum created by the inquiry has led to internet service providers becoming more
	receptive and that it has moved things on? In some ways, it has created a sea change. We now need to work with them to ensure that they bring about real, practical change, rather than simply positioning ourselves.

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not think that that is what is happening in this debate. I will come to that point in a moment, as it has also been raised by other hon. Members.
	The conclusion of our cross-party report was that parents need help, a topic that has been dealt with to some extent already in the debate. We need to think of better ways of helping parents, because what we have is not enough. I genuinely think that home-level security controls can make a huge difference. The technocrats on the Conservative Benches might suggest that such controls are much less powerful than we think, but they are much more powerful that what is often used currently. We must not make the best the enemy of the good.
	Companies need to step up to the mark, and we have been able to put pressure on some of them to do so. During our inquiry, TalkTalk showed how it would be possible to have home-level security arrangements, even though other companies said that it would not be possible to do it in that way. Now, those other companies are beginning to face up to the fact that it is possible.

Alun Cairns: I still want to underline the point that there are relatively easy ways of getting around some of those filters. We must not give the impression that having such filters will protect families and individuals.

Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman might well be right. Most filters are too complicated for someone like me to implement—a point that I kept making during the inquiry. I simply cannot do that thing where you have to type in about 25 digits and letters in order to make a filter work; and that is chronically true of mums.

Diane Abbott: The problem with those filters is that it takes a long time to master their installation, but it takes the average self-respecting child less than an hour to get round them.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right. However, what we can do by installing home-level filters is increase the base level of security. It is true that some people can get round them, but if we increase the base level of security, we are giving some extra help to some parents.
	We also need to help children to protect themselves. I was really disappointed by yesterday’s debate, which I connect to this subject, on whether sex and relationships education in schools should be compulsory. We do not have to take the word of a leftie atheist on this; let us take the words of Ofsted, which has stated:
	“A lack of high-quality, age-appropriate sex-and-relationships education in more than a third of schools is a concern as it may leave children and young people vulnerable to inappropriate sexual behaviours and sexual exploitation. This is because they have not been taught the appropriate language or developed the confidence to describe unwanted behaviours or know where to go to for help.”
	The report also found that, in just under half of schools, pupils had received lessons about staying safe but few had developed the skills to apply their understanding effectively, such as assertiveness skills that enable them to stand up for themselves and negotiate their way through difficult situations. We need to give children
	those skills, and to ensure that they can keep themselves safe. Ofsted also pointed out that children understand the importance of applying security settings on social networking sites but that they did not always know how to set them, or did not bother to do so. Our sex and relationships education is failing children, leaving them unable to keep themselves safe.
	The work of Laura Bates and the Everyday Sexism project was honoured at a dinner, held in memory of Emily Wilding Davison, that I attended last night. Everyday Sexism was honoured because it recognises how sexism can be really dangerous for young girls. I have heard Laura talk about how young girls who have been shown gross images of pornography and sexual violence by young boys are often frightened of sex. They think that sex is something cruel, horrible and dangerous. We have to bring back the connection between love and sex; it is being destroyed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has described as our “pornified” society. She is right; it makes society a dangerous place for young girls to live in. First of all, we need to help parents to protect them; we secondly expect the companies to improve their levels of protection; and we thirdly need to enable children to protect themselves. For that reason, I believe this debate is closely related to the amendment that Labour moved yesterday on compulsory sex and relationships education in schools, which needs to include the issue of consent.
	Some Members said earlier, “Let’s make this a cross-party issue”, and I am willing to do that. I have worked across party on the excellent inquiry on the safety of children on the internet. If the Minister said to the Opposition Front-Bench team, “I will invite you to the summit dealing with URLs and providers, as you should be there”, I would then believe that this was a genuinely cross-party issue, and I would invite my Front-Bench team not to press this motion to the vote. I am thus challenging the Minister to do that in his response. I would hope that if he did so my Front-Bench team would say, “Okay, we do not need a vote; this is genuinely cross-party; we are unanimous and we will together do more to protect our children from a violent society that is making them frightened of sexual relationships.” We should feel very guilty if the result of what we do is to create a world in which sex is scary.

Julian Huppert: I was not planning to speak, but I found the tenor of so much of what has been said so frustrating in its lack of accuracy that I had to speak. I would exempt some speeches, particularly that of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who used technical accuracy, which does matter. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for whom I usually have great respect, but she gave it away when she complained about “the technocrats”. Technical accuracy matters if we are going to do things that work. We need to know exactly what “inviting urls to a meeting” is supposed to mean.
	There is a huge danger of falling into the trap of the politician’s syllogism: we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this. That is the danger we face. Is there a problem? Absolutely, there is a huge problem with child pornography, which is nasty, cruel
	and illegal. We have to stop it. The IWF does an excellent job in trying to do so. Is there a problem with young people having inappropriate access? Yes. Is there a problem with online grooming? Yes. Is there a problem with online cyber-bullying? Absolutely. Is there a problem with the widespread sexualisation of young women in particular? Absolutely, and I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) for her consistent work to combat it.
	The approach highlighted today, particularly by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), simply will not work. I find that frustrating, as it does not engage with the facts or reality of what is happening. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was heckling earlier and said that we should not focus on the detail. If we do not focus on the detail, we will not get something that works.
	What would work? I absolutely endorse the work of the Internet Watch Foundation. It does excellent work and I am delighted to see it getting more funding, as I think it should have extra support. I am pleased, too, that the Government are supporting CEOP so that when we find people carrying out illegal activities, we take the correct legal action. That is what should happen. We should never allow a situation in which the police simply do not have the money to arrest somebody who they know is doing something illegal.
	The things we have heard about today will not make a difference. The people who are heavily engaged in child pornography will not be tackled. Those people are very internet savvy. They will use virtual private networks that are not listed, so nothing we have heard about today will tackle any of those problems. We have to work at the technical level to get things right rather than just try to make it look as if we are doing something.
	In some ways, child pornography is easier to deal with because it is possible to define it. We know what is illegal and there are clear definitions. The IWF has a manual check for the sites. Certain sites can be blocked only when it knows that there is something wrong. That is very different from the space around legal material, or trying to come up with ways of filtering out things that are fundamentally legal and making a judgment call based on them.

Helen Goodman: We are making judgment calls all the time.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but writing algorithms to do that on millions and millions of websites simply cannot be done correctly. I shall come back to that, although I know that the hon. Lady and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham are not concerned about the errors that would be made.
	It is absolutely right to provide tools for parents to control what is happening. They should be the ones empowered to look after their children. I would rather trust the parents to look after their children than require state-level controls. It is absolutely right to have those available for people to use and to make them easy and clear to use. I think there should be no default because I think we should encourage parents to engage with the question before they make a decision. They should be faced with a box that they have to tick, but they should
	be in charge. The Byron review was very clear that a false sense of security could be created if we just tell people that everything is safe.

Sheila Gilmore: The problem here is that we are not dealing with simply looking at a book or magazine and deciding whether it is suitable for a child. We are dealing with something that many people have said—this has been the focus of much of the research—they find very difficult to operate. The outcome is that many parents are not able to use those filters.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady is right, which is exactly why we need simpler filters. The work done by Talk Talk and others provides precisely that. There should be simple clear filters with simple clear questions so that parents can have a look and make a simple clear decision. I do not want to force parents to abdicate that responsibility because there are other consequences of these filters.
	Any filtering system will have large errors. There will be errors that mean it does not filter out some things that we might want it to filter out because it cannot be sorted out perfectly. There is no way of indentifying automatically what counts as pornography and what does not; what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. That is simply impossible to achieve, so stuff will get through that we are not expecting to get through. There is also the problem of filtering some useful things out. There are already many cases—when it comes to advice for lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, for example—where mobile phone providers automatically filter out the content, which can cause serious harm to young people trying to get advice. Trying to get advice about abortion services is another problem. There are a whole range of such issues that are automatically filtered out by many mobile phone providers. If we are telling children that we do not want to let them have appropriate information, that can be damaging.

Tim Loughton: I should declare an interest as a champion of the Internet Watch Foundation. I am slightly disappointed at the rather defeatist attitude taken by the hon. Gentleman. The solution is not a silver bullet. It is not any one of the individual things that have been mentioned; it is a jigsaw. Empowering and giving resilience and confidence to our children—and confidence, resilience and expertise to their parents to be able to filter what they believe to be right and wrong—is an important part of that jigsaw. Filters have their flaws, but they are part of that jigsaw as well. Will the hon. Gentleman admit that some of the things mentioned during the debate are part of the solution and that we should not dismiss them simply because they are not absolutely perfect?

Julian Huppert: I agreed with almost everything the hon. Gentleman said, until the end. Yes, I think we should empower parents to make the correct decisions, and I believe we should educate children so that they can think for themselves and be empowered. I absolutely agree with all of that, but that is not what the motion says and it is not what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland emphasised. The hon. Gentleman and I would agree that there are some important measures for
	empowerment: the problem is, if we provide an illusion of protection, which gives people a false sense of security, that can make people less safe. It can leave children more exposed than doing things that actually work. It also downgrades the role of parents and parenting.
	Moreover, we must accept that any filter can be bypassed. It is easy for those who know what they are doing to carry out a quick Google search and find out how to bypass any filter that they encounter, and there is no way in which we could prevent that from happening. We must therefore try to engage with people rather than introducing state control in the form of legislation to force search engines to run in a particular way, because that does not work. [Interruption.] The motion calls for legislation. If the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland does not believe that it should, that is her problem. Perhaps it suggests that motions should be tabled rather earlier than a few hours before the deadline for any changes.
	Yes, we must do something, but what we do must work, must be proportionate, and must make things better for the people about whom we are concerned. That, rather than what was suggested by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, is the way forward. I commend the Minister—it is good to see him back in the Chamber—for his work on the issue, for his commitment to trying to deal with the problems in a way that will make a difference, and for the position that he has taken today.

Sheila Gilmore: While we are all patting ourselves on the back and saying that there is widespread agreement—and there clearly is widespread agreement—we should also bear it in mind that there is a considerable campaign against the taking of steps in this direction. It has not really been represented in the House today, but it is clear from earlier debates, and from communications that we have all received, that there is another point of view which is very different. There are people who want a degree of freedom in society that can actually be damaging, and we must be prepared to have a proper debate about that as well.
	The issue of freedom is very important in the history of events such as the women’s movement, but there has often been a confusion between freedom in a fairly abstract sense—for instance, the sexual liberation of the 1960s—and the effect that some material can have on, in particular, those who are vulnerable. Much of what appears on the internet and elsewhere is damaging because of the way in which it portrays women, the way in which it portrays relationships between men and women, and the way in which it allows people to see a version of human relations that is deeply damaging.
	People sometimes say that such material will not be harmful to many people, but it probably will be. It is interesting that the same argument is never advanced about advertising. People do not advertise because they think that advertising does not work; they advertise because they think that advertisements influence us, and indeed we are all clearly influenced by them. We have all found ourselves going into a shop and buying something that we may not have meant to buy because we saw or heard an advertisement for it, and thought “That sounds like a good idea.” I am not suggesting that someone who stumbles across pornography, online
	or anywhere else, is bound to turn into a violent person, but there will be some people whose attitudes, particularly their attitudes to what is acceptable between men and women, will be affected by it.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the availability of images on the internet. There are more child abuse images circulating on the internet now than ever before. As a result of freedom of information requests by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, about 26 million images were seized in two years by five local forces. Does my hon. Friend agree that the availability of such material is leading to a potential normalisation of it, and that that is one of the most important problems that we must tackle in the interests of our children today?

Sheila Gilmore: I agree that we should take that problem very seriously, and should take action to deal with it.
	This is not only about protecting children, although that is extremely important. It is also about protecting older young people, and about protecting adults and, hopefully, changing their views. I think that if certain types of behaviour are normalised and become commonplace, they will eventually be seen as broadly acceptable, and the relationships that are portrayed between men and women will be considered not unacceptable, but something that women themselves are almost expected to accept.
	I think that it is important to deal with this. I thought that it was important many years ago when groups were campaigning about, for example, pornography in magazines, but this type of pornography is pervasive in a way that even that was not. Going to buy a magazine in a shop was a more difficult transaction for many people than what we now see happening in our homes.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does my hon. Friend also think that ISPs have a vested interest in that regard? If adults had to opt in to view adult sites and pornography, that would almost certainly have an impact on business and the number of people choosing that option.

Sheila Gilmore: In many ways, I would hope that that was not the case. I do not know where the ISPs make their money, but many of us are critical of their reluctance in this matter. One or two Members have suggested today that, because some of the proposals would not be perfect and would not screen out everything and because some organisations and people might be clever enough get around them in various technical ways that we do not necessarily fully understand, we should not take those steps. As in so much of our political and social lives, we should not make the best the enemy of the good. If we can do something to improve things, we should do it.

Alun Cairns: I want to highlight that I am a strong advocate and fan of filters, but I think it is very dangerous to give the impression that they are the whole answer. The solution is far more complicated than that and we must be clear about it.

Sheila Gilmore: We must not approach this at cross purposes. I do not think that anyone is saying that any of the proposals are perfect; we are merely seeking to
	improve the situation and to give greater protection. I have no doubt that there will be some very clever people who can find ways around all sorts of things—we know that that happens—but to say that we should not put such measures in place for that reason would be wholly wrong.
	Let me address some of what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said. He seemed, perhaps surprisingly, to be setting the state against the parent in a way that is not helpful. Of course parents should be making decisions for their children, but there are many circumstances in which we have to rely on others in schools and in the wider world to protect our children. That is not an abdication of parental responsibility, because parents cannot be with their child all the time. They will not be able to supervise every social contact they have. As a parent, I would certainly prefer to be confident that I could let my children out into a world that I could regard as reasonably safe—whether that was the physical or virtual world—than to be unable to do so. Perhaps that is not what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but that was how it came across to me. Suggesting that such an approach somehow does not leave things to the parents and that it wants the state to step in is a wholly wrong way of considering the matter.

Julian Huppert: The concern is that the filters will be easy to bypass and that a huge proportion of young people will be able to get past them. If parents are led to believe that such things mean that their children will not be able to access inappropriate material when they are up in their room on their computer, that will lead parents to make the wrong decisions about how best to look after their children. It is not that parents do not know how to do that—as we know from when parents were asked about the subject by Ofcom, this is a question of supervision, which is far more effective than a misleading sense of security.

Sheila Gilmore: One of the practical problems with that approach is the notion that someone is, in any sense, going to be there supervising their children through all this—we all do our best. We attempt to instil the values and behaviours that we want in our children, but it would be wrong to suggest that that will always work, even for those of us who think, or hope, we are or have been very good parents. Children grow older and they are out in that wider world—in friends’ homes or out in all sorts of other social contexts. I want my children to be protected from being able to buy alcohol when they are too young to buy it. I do not want to have to accompany them everywhere to make sure they do not do that; I want to be sure that they are, within reason, protected. However, I know that that can be got round as well, because I know that children are very good at getting fake IDs. That does not mean that we should just abandon the attempt to control these things.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The wind-ups are due to start at 4.10 pm, so I am establishing a time limit on all Back-Bench speakers of six minutes. If there are lots of interventions and speeches run for longer than six minutes, the last few speakers will have their time cut again. Please remember that interventions are supposed to brief and relevant to the point being made at the time. I call Diane Abbott.

Diane Abbott: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be speaking in this important debate. Throughout it, we have heard a lot about committees, working parties and foundations, but I want to bring the debate back to what is at the heart of this issue—children and families. I say to the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) that I bow to no one in my respect for the enthusiasm with which she has embraced this issue since she became a Member of Parliament in 2010, but she must be slightly careful about sounding as if politics began when she became a Member of Parliament then. It is also appropriate to give some credit to all the individual activists, and to organisations such as the Mothers’ Union and the Everyday Sexism Project, for campaigning on these issues for very many years before 2010.
	A number of Government Members have made the distinction between legal and illegal internet images, as if the legal ones are in some sense benign. Let me remind the House that it would not be legal to show those images to under-18s in a cinema, so why should we be complacent about under-18s accessing them online? Over and over again, I have heard Members of this House say, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) did, “Parents should look after their children. It is all about the parents.” One of the problems with this particular issue is that the technology and the drive of the industry has completely outrun parents’ understanding. When I was a child, if a young person wanted to see pornography, they had to go to a newsagent and purchase a top-shelf magazine. No newsagent would have sold such a magazine to a child as young as 11, yet the average age of boys accessing hardcore porn online has dropped to eight. That is what we are talking about. We would not allow eight-year-olds to go into a cinema to see hardcore porn, so why are Government Members so complacent, or unwilling to take decisive action, about eight-year-olds accessing this online—on their computer, on their phone or wherever?
	People who say, “The parents should sit by them” are not living in the world that parents do. I have sat next to my son when he was a much smaller child and we have been innocently googling “Disney” or “Pokémon” only to find that these pornographic pop-ups appear on the screen. If the child is there on their own, all they have to do is click through to see thoroughly horrific images—that is the reality.
	This is all about ease of access, the way in which the technology has come on in leaps and bounds and the harms of online porn. In the few minutes available to me, I want to touch on that. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) spoke from her own experience about it. We are dealing with an increasingly sexualised and pornified culture. Even if our own children are not accessing porn, the extent to which young people are doing so is affecting girls’ self-image and boys’ sexual demands. Girls now think it perfectly normal to sext pictures of their naked bodies to boys; otherwise they are not accepted—not part of the gang. We in this country have more plastic surgery than people anywhere else in Europe. Accessing online porn is associated with domestic violence and, as we have heard, murder and brutality. There are real harms attached to the increasing access by very young children of online porn, and I wish some Government Members had taken the matter more seriously.
	As for the role of the industry, I am very glad that everyone is sitting round the table with the industry, and I am glad that the industry is being nice, but this House must remember that pornography is the biggest driver of traffic to the internet. Porn is the most frequent search term on Google. We cannot allow an industry that makes millions out of porn, month on month, to dictate the pace of change.
	What needs to happen? No one is saying that there is one technological fix; not a single speaker has said that. First, we need to help parents to talk to their children. Through Sure Start and other initiatives, we need to encourage young parents to understand how to talk to their children about these matters, and to understand the dangers. Most young children do not understand that if they text or put on Facebook a picture of their naked body, it never disappears. We need to help parents to talk to their children, but we also need statutory sex and relationships education. No one will take the Government seriously on the matter of access by children to online porn while they continue to set their face against statutory sex and relationship education.
	Of course, we need a willingness to legislate. I am very glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), sits around the table with the industry, and that many members of the Government have personal connections with Google and so forth, but women and families watching this debate do not want the industry to dictate the pace of change. They want a Government who are prepared to stand up to the industry and to legislate, because only with a realistic threat of legislation will the industry meet these needs and concerns, and address the unhappiness and misery that children’s access to online porn is causing in our society.

Susan Elan Jones: My constituency is not that far from where the tragic death of April Jones took place, and there was much reflection in the communities that make up my constituency on the issues surrounding that death, and on the mindset of Mark Bridger. I do not make any pretence of great technical knowledge, and I was reminded of that point yet again yesterday when I failed to add a printer to my computer; instead, I went on to another. That is not the issue. For me, this is not a general, abstract debate on what is, and what is not, censorship. It is about how things that would not in a million years be legal offline seem to be legal online. That is a matter of great concern. Offline, we would not allow young children access to the sort of images that they can access online, and that is of great concern.
	Some people will try to portray this as a debate about censorship. We know what censorship means; it happens in certain countries, where there is the total blocking of social networking and references to the Dalai Lama, and a ban on certain political viewpoints. We are not talking about that.
	Various American states have brought in legislation on the issue, including, in some cases, state-mandated internet filtering on various computers. Certain states have passed laws against digital harassment. The state of Illinois has criminalised electronic harassment outside the school setting. That is interesting, and it is important that we learn from those experiences.
	I was heartened by what the Minister said when my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) brought up the issue of closing the loophole regarding rape pornography websites. It has been illegal to publish portrayals of rape in the UK since 1959, but such material is legally available to download online if it comes from foreign websites. I am heartened by what the Minister said; I think I detect a certain softening of what the Ministry of Justice has previously said on that, and I hope that the Government take the views of many individuals and groups into consideration.
	The Minister and other Members have spoken at length about the excellent work of CEOP. Figures provided by CEOP show that only one in every 15 people caught viewing child pornography on the internet is arrested. The NSPCC has said that when agencies such as CEOP track down people viewing pictures of child abuse, they should
	“feel the full force of the law”,
	making the point that it was shocked by the figures and calling on police chiefs to take the issue more seriously because of the strong link between viewing child porn and attacks on youngsters. As a spokeswoman for YoungMinds, a charity committed to improving the emotional well-being and mental health of children and young people said, the link between viewing child pornography and the sexual abuse of children means that
	“thousands are at risk of serious harm”.
	That is an important point highlighting the need to arrest more of the people involved.
	In 2008, for the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, Professor Tanya Byron stressed the importance of building children’s resilience; for example, teaching them not to give out contact details online. I, too, was disappointed that we did not have the debate on relationship education yesterday and I hope it will come back in another format.
	Finally, many of us have been interested in the debate taking place on Facebook where to some extent we are seeing citizen power, with people contacting the advertisers of various sites and stating that they will not buy their products unless they put pressure on certain social networking sites to take down, for example, jokes relating to rape. We all know that we cannot totally police the internet but it is important that we try to do that in diverse ways, and that we come together as a House to do so. This is not an issue about social liberals or social conservatives. I am quite happy to say that I am a social conservative inside the Labour party, although my more socially liberal friends are not always pleased about that. It is important that the issue brings us together and that we continue to work on it because, as we saw in the case of April Jones, in its most extreme form its consequences are truly devastating.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). I declare myself a dinosaur where online issues are concerned. I was going to say the same thing about my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), but she is much more modern than I am. Although she, I and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were elected 26 years ago
	yesterday, she is thoroughly modern in her approach. She was able to name the Pokémons as one of the groups that children look at online, though Pokémons are perfectly fine as creatures and they probably need protection from the children.
	In the short time available to us to speak, let me say that I normally go to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee, for advice on these matters, and I listened carefully to what he said about filters. However, I think the real responsibility is on the internet companies and the service providers. They have got away with murder—literally, in some cases—because people have been able to use the internet to groom young girls and children and to behave in an irresponsible way. The internet companies throw up their hands and say that is freedom of speech.
	We recently had some of those companies before the Home Affairs Committee during our last inquiry and also during a previous inquiry, so we have questioned them about both the roots of radicalism and e-crime. We will invite them again when we look at this matter again. They are very reluctant to intervene, and a tiny proportion of their profits—a tiny proportion—goes to the Internet Watch Foundation. It is not enough. They cannot sit back complacently and allow these things to go on without intervening and cleaning up the internet.
	The Home Secretary has made positive statements, after what happened in Woolwich, about her desire to get things done. I am glad that there is a summit next week. I hope that she will be invited and that this is not just being seen as an issue for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because when dealing with crime it is important to ensure that the police are fully involved.

Tim Loughton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Keith Vaz: I will get into trouble with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will give way briefly.

Tim Loughton: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the search engines, most of which are based in America, pleading freedom of speech. Does he agree that every search engine could have a simple sign on its home page alerting users to how they can report material they are concerned about, which would cost nothing? That way, there would be no excuse for not knowing what to do. They could also put money into having moderators to ensure a rapid response to unacceptable material.

Keith Vaz: Yes, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all the work he did in that area as Children’s Minister and since then. The internet companies must be proactive. They have to go in and clean up the internet. They cannot just sit back and allow others to do it for them. It is so difficult to get internet companies to appear before Select Committees. It takes an age to find them, and then they always respond by saying that they are based in California or New York and therefore do not come over to the UK. They send us their public relations officers, but they, very nice people though they are, are not the decision makers.
	I am full of praise for the work CEOP does. I have visited it, along with members of the Home Affairs Committee, and encourage other right hon. and hon. Members to go—it is just across the Vauxhall Bridge road—and see the fantastic work being done. I pay tribute to Jim Gamble for his work in setting it up in the first place and to Peter Davies, who leads it ably. I say to the Policing Minister—he is now in conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has done a great deal of work in these matters, for which we are grateful—that it is very important that we protect CEOP’s budget. The Home Affairs Committee expressed concern that CEOP was being put into the National Crime Agency. We accept what the Government have done and understand the need to rationalise the policing landscape, but it is important to maintain CEOP’s budget and focus. I understand that its budget will be cut by 10% over the next four years. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me that that is not the case and that CEOP, even though it is in the NCA—the Committee thinks that is fine for the moment, but we will revisit the subject—will still retain its focus. Ultimately, it provides terrific expertise that could benefit police forces across the country.
	Finally, I recently visited Europol and Interpol. I urge the Policing Minister to visit those organisations, because I gather that no Home Office Minister has visited Europol in recent years. They are doing some fantastic work internationally. I know that the Cabinet Office has funded a project in Interpol specifically dealing with online child exploitation. I think that we can take credit for the work we are doing internationally. To return to my first point, the internet is a marvellous invention and a power for good, but as we have seen, and as we have heard today, it can be used in a different, darker way to exploit children. I hope that internet service providers and others involved in this whole area will understand their responsibilities and act accordingly.

Sarah Champion: On Monday the Home Affairs Committee launched its report on child sexual exploitation and grooming. Rotherham is one of the areas that figures in that report, due to it historic failings in tackling that vile crime. Since my election six months ago, I have made it my mission to ensure that we do not let Rotherham children, and indeed all children, down like that again. Rotherham council and South Yorkshire police are now working collaboratively with the national charity Barnardo’s and local charities SAFE@LAST and GROW. Together they will implement preventive measures and investigate and prosecute abusers.
	Since January there have been 34 investigations into child sexual exploitation. Seven offenders are now being prosecuted and there are four major ongoing operations. I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this House that I will be watching like a hawk to make sure that the authorities continue to protect our children. However, child sexual exploitation has been steadily increasing in the UK. Barnardo’s, which runs 24 sexual exploitation services across the country, saw a 22% increase in the numbers of sexually exploited children in 2011-12. The internet has been used in the majority of those cases.
	The dramatic rise in the use of communications technology and the development of new forms of social interaction online have hugely complicated child protection in Britain. Social media have greatly increased the ability of gangs and individuals to target vulnerable children. Children naively share a great deal of information online and are often unaware of the risks in doing so, or of the security measures that are there to protect them. Abusers have always been able to identify vulnerable children, but social media and mobile phones now make it easy for them to make contact with them.
	Technology has left parents with an extremely difficult task in monitoring their children’s interactions and recognising potentially dangerous situations. Children and parents must be better educated as to the risks of online communications and the safeguards that are currently available. I recognise the comments of the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), which others have echoed, but I still urge the House to support our proposal to have safe search as the default option on computers and search engines. Filters already exist to screen out harmful material, but 54% of parents whose children use the internet at home have no parental controls installed on their devices. Making filters the factory setting removes this risk, and parents have the option to opt out of the system if they see fit.
	Social media have increasingly exposed ever-younger children to sexualised material. Some 24% of nine to 16-year-olds in the UK say that they have seen sexual images in the past 12 months, online or offline. A number of services have linked exposure to overtly sexual content via the internet with children displaying inappropriately sexual behaviour. Such behaviour has been highlighted as contributing to greater vulnerability of increasingly young children. I do not believe in censoring the internet, but it is important that children are protected from inappropriate content.
	In the past, increased sexual behaviour among children has led to a perception that they are somehow complicit in their abuse. Regrettably, this has frequently been an obstacle to proper safeguarding measures being taken. Equally horrifyingly, the child’s sexual awareness has been successfully used in courts to enable abusers to get a lesser sentence. Work is being done to tackle this attitude among authorities and police forces, but it is imperative that proper training is provided to staff to ensure that they take all cases seriously and recognise the need to protect children, regardless of the child’s own attitude or behaviour.
	Technology is, by its nature, evolving. Agencies face an extremely complex task in keeping up with developments and ensuring that procedures are adequate and that staff are well trained to meet existing and developing challenges. The complexity of these challenges has demonstrated the need for better co-ordinated operations. Agencies must ensure that there is a free flow of information between them because in the past it has proved too easy for vulnerable children to fall through the gaps due to poor communication. Levels of co-ordination vary widely throughout the country, and that should not be allowed.
	While child protection must always be the primary focus, prosecution must not be allowed to become an ancillary concern. I recognise that prosecutions in these cases can be extremely difficult, but without a proper deterrent the risk of child abuse will continue to rise. We must ensure that the law is fit for purpose. New forms of abuse and grooming, especially online, might not always
	fall under existing laws. It is our duty to provide our police and child protection officers with the tools they require to ensure that vulnerable children are protected and offenders are prosecuted.
	A number of recent cases, including in my own constituency, have highlighted the need for further action to tackle child abuse. Good work is being done to ensure that children are protected, but I stress that more needs to be done to meet the demands of a complex and fast-changing problem. We must ensure that vulnerable children are not failed.

Geraint Davies: Google, Facebook and Twitter are the new gateways for abuse and pornography—Google historically so. Google has donated £1 million, but it is important that such enormous companies pay their tax and take their responsibilities. I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) about the appalling death of one of her constituents and agree with her call to track sex offenders online.
	I am glad to see the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), in his place—I hope he knows something about this—because we need to confiscate the passports of known sex offenders involved in sex tourism, which I have discussed in the Council of Europe. There needs to be more international collaboration, including DNA sharing.
	I mentioned earlier the responsibility of credit card companies such as Visa. If they are found to be complicit in the downloading of child abuse imagery they should be fined. It is a startling fact that across Europe about one in five children are likely to be subjected to sexual violence. This is the appalling world we now live in, hence the Lanzarote convention, which is an international agreement to protect children’s rights, stop exploitation and increase co-operation. I hope that, despite the inward-looking tendency of the current Administration vis-à-vis Europe and the world, they will reach out in the interests of children.
	I intend to table an early-day motion on the issue of rape imagery on the internet. I mentioned it on Twitter and received a barrage of responses from, of course, men—some of whom were lawyers—saying that the Ministry of Justice says that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between the portrayal of women being raped and encouraging rape and rapists. That is an extraordinary thing to say, but even if it was true it is wrong to think that it is all right for men to get off on online images of women being raped.
	The reality is that children take their mobile phones to schools and freely download images of—how can I put it?—“normal” pornography and more abusive pornography, which is leading to a new idea of what is culturally acceptable in human relationships. That, in turn, puts pressure on women to go through a process of various pornographic acts that are regarded as the norm in a relationship. There is a danger that boys are being encouraged to be more forceful in their pursuit of girlfriends and what they expect them to do in emulating what is regarded as normal adult behaviour.
	The motion’s call for an opt-out, therefore, is completely right. The facile comments made by various Members about filters not being perfect so we should not have
	any are ridiculous. It is like saying that a safety belt or another form of protection cannot protect us completely. Obviously they cannot, but when children are given phones by their parents they should be locked out of accessing imagery that they can share with others—this is true of the male community in particular—while endless pressure is put on the female community. We want schools to be a protected environment for our children. That must be part of the answer.
	I am drawing a wider picture of the appalling situation with regard to child sex abuse imagery. As the normality of viewing this sort of stuff penetrates our school environment, affecting younger and younger children, the whole thing becomes an endemic problem. We need to act now. It is true that we need cross-party consensus, but we cannot simply rest on our laurels, hope for the best and get grudging, belated co-operation from the industry, which is making so much money out of internet pornography.

Diana Johnson: All hon. Members agree that child abuse is an horrific crime. I am pleased that the Opposition have provided the House with the opportunity to discuss how to tackle it this afternoon.
	I am disappointed that the Government will not support the motion. We tabled it in good faith and it is wrong to accuse us of playing politics on this important issue. After all, all of us in Parliament are politicians and we are debating the big political issues of the day. I am sorry if it is politically inconvenient for the Government to discuss this subject today. It is also a great shame that they were not able to stir themselves to table an amendment to the motion.
	Members may be interested to know that in the course of this debate, reports have come in of material that should be taken down. It is therefore good that this debate has taken place.
	I would like to mention a few of the contributions that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) talked in a very personal way about how difficult it is for young people to deal with abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke of his experience of hate crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) talked about the dreadful murder of Ashleigh Hall and the need to regulate the use of the internet by sex offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) talked about the important role of PSHE and said that it should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) spoke, as usual, with enormous common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made an excellent contribution about the pornified culture that has developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) set out clearly how things can be illegal offline but legal online. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee talked about the importance of working not just with the DCMS, but with the Home Office and other agencies on this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke with great knowledge about what is happening in her local area,
	and the problems and challenges that it faces. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) had an excellent idea relating to the role of credit card companies in helping people to download porn.
	There were contributions from other Members of the House, including the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). It is important to acknowledge her hard work on this subject. It is unfortunate that she was unable to stay for most of the debate and did not hear the contributions of many hon. Members who have been concerned about this issue and taken it up for many years. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made a sensible proposal about music videos that I hope the Government heard. The hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also spoke.
	The estimate of the number of people in the UK who access child abuse images online is truly shocking and cannot be ignored. I was pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport agreed that it is important to realise that everyone who accesses such material on the web is an abuser, because accessing images of abuse is an inherent element of the process of abuse.
	In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) talked about the important work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, as did the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. The work that CEOP does is unpleasant and complicated, but it has the expertise to profile offenders and understand the processes of abuse. However, it is being lost as a separate, dedicated agency and will become part of the National Crime Agency. We have already lost its former head, Jim Gamble, and his 20 years of experience in fighting abuse. He did not feel that the new framework would protect the work that CEOP does. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee also raised concerns about its budget. I hope that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will reassure the House on that issue.
	Police forces up and down the country are attempting to prevent abuse and to prosecute those who are involved. However, they are having to deal with a 20% cut to the policing budget, which means that they are losing thousands of officers from the front line, as well as back-office staff who investigate crimes and support victims. Will the Minister say whether he considers the work that is carried out in this area to be front-line policing? Although reported crime is falling overall, will he say where the 500,000 people who reportedly access child abuse images online appear in the crime figures?
	Dealing with technology for keeping our children safe is not always the forte of the House of Commons, but I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, and many other Members, for their work on how we can utilise technology in the fight to keep children safe. Sometimes, that will mean working with the industry, and in many cases we are grateful for the research it has done and the work in which it has invested. As the motion points out, however, where the industry—particularly ISPs—do not respond, it is our role as law makers to make it act. The Government must have their own technical advisers so that they do not have to rely on the industry saying whether something
	is or is not possible. At the summit next week, I hope that Ministers will make clear the need to act swiftly and resolve issues that have been outstanding for some time, with a clear timetable.
	In the context of abusive material being freely available, we should be looking to help parents protect children from accessing pornography. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland made an eloquent case for how the three measures that Labour is calling for in the motion could be a practical solution to try to stop children accessing pornography.
	The report from the Children’s Commissioner, appropriately entitled “Basically...porn is everywhere”, found that a significant proportion of children and young people are exposed to or access pornography, and it is not uncommon for children as young as 10 to access it. Perhaps more important are the report’s findings on the effect that is having on young people. Access and exposure to pornography affects children and young people’s sexual beliefs, leading to unrealistic attitudes about sex and beliefs that women are sex objects. There is a clear link between access and exposure to pornography, and children’s and young people’s engagement in risky behaviours. Exposure to sexualised and violent imagery has a particular effect on the development of young people’s attitudes to relationships. That is why one of the commissioner’s main recommendations was for proper sex and relationship education to tackle attitudes premised on pornography.
	The logic is clear. With children being exposed to ever more graphic and extreme images online and through social media, we should use schools as a forum to have an informed discussion with children about sex and relationships. Of course we want families to do that too, but many parents are asking for such discussions to be part of the school curriculum as well. We should explain to children what constitutes consent and what constitutes abuse.

Claire Perry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Johnson: I will not give way because the hon. Lady was not present for most of the debate this afternoon.
	The Government repeatedly claim that good schools are already providing good personal, social, health and economic education. That may be right in some schools, but they cannot continue to deny research that shows that the overwhelming majority of schools do not provide good PSHE. Yesterday, the House had the opportunity to ensure that all schools provide such education, but the Government blocked the measure. Shockingly, the Liberal Democrats voted against their own long-standing party policy on PSHE being made statutory.
	It may be too early to talk about the long-term effects of witnessing pornography from a young age, but it is not too early to talk about the current environment that girls face at school. I pay tribute to the work of the End Violence Against Women coalition, and its Schools Safe 4 Girls campaign. It has highlighted the fact that one in three teenage girls has experienced sexual violence from a partner. In a survey of year nine children as part of the From Boys to Men project, 40% of children interviewed reported that hitting a partner was okay in at least one of the circumstances highlighted. If we are serious about tackling child abuse, we must be serious
	about tackling the climate in which children and young people grow up, and the images to which they are exposed.
	As well as stopping child abuse, we need to tackle staged rape and child abuse—the so-called rape porn industry that depicts rape and child abuse and that, because it is staged by actors who are over 18, is legal. The End Violence Against Women coalition and the South London Rape Crisis centre have highlighted the material that is available. It includes: “Young schoolgirls abducted and cruelly raped. Hear her screams”, “Little schoolgirl raped by teacher”, “Tiny girl sleep rape” and “Girl raped at gun point”. One expert, Professor Clare McGlynn of Durham university, has said:
	“It is undeniable that the proliferation and tolerance of such images and the messages they convey contributes to a cultural climate where sexual violence is condoned.”
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said in opening the debate, both Mark Bridger and Stuart Hazell had viewed violent and misogynistic pornography before they murdered young girls. Labour is committed to looking at how to ban such violent content. I hope the Minister joins the Opposition by committing the Government to the principle of banning such material.
	In a free society in the digital age, we cannot protect young people from every danger they could encounter, but we can tilt the odds in their favour. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support the motion.

Damian Green: Protecting children online is of huge and growing importance. I thank all hon. Members for a useful and thought-provoking debate. I join the many tributes rightly paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) for her energy and work. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) was uncharacteristically churlish in her remarks to my hon. Friend. I will not reciprocate in kind by naming the Labour Members who asked me to respond to points at the end of the debate who are not now in their seats.
	Along with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am appalled by the continuing misuse of the internet in the various ways they have discussed. As the debate has shown, we have made significant strides in tackling the problem through collaborative work by the Government, law enforcement, the industry and charities. Of course, there is a great deal more to do. We are fully committed to tackling the creation, sale and possession of child abuse images.
	The Government strongly support the work to prevent access to such images. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in his opening speech, a lot of work has been done, with 98% of domestic broadband lines covered by blocking based on the Internet Watch Foundation list.
	We note the findings in the IWF report regarding the difference in the speed of take-down of illegal images between IWF members and ISP hosting providers that are not members. We urge all ISPs and hosting providers to join the IWF and improve their take-down times. We expect all companies to do their utmost to protect our society from such images through implementing blocking using the IWF list and by taking any other action they
	can take. For example, Google is a member of the IWF, and works to remove child abuse images as soon as it becomes aware of them. The IWF has recommended that as a further deterrent its members return an error page notifying users that they have tried to access indecent images of children.
	Let me deal with as many of the individual points that have been made as I can. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre budget has been relatively protected. More importantly, by modernising the structure and processes, and through the effective harnessing of other funding sources from outside the Government, CEOP has increased the number of people who work for it from 85 in November in 2010 to 130 currently. More people currently work in CEOP than at any time in its history. As its recent annual review illustrated, the centre is more productive than ever. Therefore, the line in the motion on the lack of resources available to the police to tackle the problem is simply factually wrong.
	In 2012-13, CEOP safeguarded and protected 790 children, an increase of 85% on the previous year, and the highest yearly figure since the centre launched in 2006. That brings the total number of children who have been protected to 2,255 in that seven-year history. Its chief executive, Peter Davies, has said:
	“This past year has not only seen increases in the number of reports to the Centre from the public and industry, but also a large increase in the number of children CEOP has been able to protect and safeguard from some of the worst offenders who seek to exploit our children.”
	CEOP is doing a good job. It is getting better and better at doing that job, and it will get better still as part of the National Crime Agency. There seems to be some misunderstanding on the Labour Benches. CEOP will retain its identity within the NCA, but being part of the NCA will enable it to become even more effective.
	Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North in her winding-up speech, raised the issue of simulated pornographic images depicting rape. It goes without saying that rape is an abhorrent crime and I understand the concern about the availability of such content. We are meeting internet providers to consider what more can be done. The issue will also be looked at by the new national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which I am now chairing. It is a very serious issue for the Government.
	Various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), raised the issue of content that is characteristically accessed through mobile devices. Since 2005, mobile network operators have signed up to a voluntary code to apply default filters for pornography via mobile devices that are internet-enabled. I hope that provides her and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) with some reassurance.
	I mentioned the national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people. The issues we have been discussing today are part of its work, but only a small part, as consideration of the recent cases of organised predatory child abuse will be a significant part of the group’s activity. In response to whether the Home Office will be at the summit next week, I will be there in my role as chairman of that group.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) asked about online video labelling. Ministers have called on the industry to develop solutions by the end of this year to ensure that online videos, particularly
	those that are likely to be sought out by children and young people, carry advice on their age suitability and content. I hope that provides him with reassurance. The British Board of Film Classification is on the board of UKCCIS—the UK Council for Child Internet Safety—so it is intimately involved with all our work on this matter. Various Members mentioned the effect on gaming online. All major games consoles have parental controls that allow parents to restrict online gaming by their children.
	I am happy to reassure Members who asked whether we were working closely with other EU countries. We are looking at several key areas on an EU-wide basis, including: better notice and take-down of child sex abuse images, better promotion of parental interest controls, better reporting and better privacy settings. As has been said, the UK is a leader not just in Europe but around the world in its response to this difficult matter, and I think other European countries would acknowledge that.
	There has been much discussion about parents. Although the majority of parents feel that they have the information they need to help their children stay safe online, 81% say that they talk to their children about their internet use. Again, there is more to be done. There are good private sector initiatives, such as Vodafone’s Digital Parenting magazine and the “Parent Portal” website, which contains useful online safety information. This September, the ISPs will be launching a campaign to improve parents’ awareness of internet safety.
	There has also been much discussion on what happens in our schools. I should emphasise that the Secretary of State’s guidance on teaching sex and relationships in secondary schools will address key issues such as consent within relationships. The discussion of online safety for children, which already takes place in secondary schools, will soon be switched to primary schools too. That should address the point about very young children accessing such material.
	I hope the House will see that a huge amount has been done. We part company from the motion over the thought that not much has been done. This is a very difficult area and we are doing a lot, and to suggest that nothing much is happening is simply wrong. I hope, therefore, that having listened to this very serious debate, the Opposition will withdraw their motion, but if they decide not to do so, I urge the House to reject the motion and endorse the effective action taken by the Government on this important matter.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31 (2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 227, Noes 280.

Question accordingly negatived.

Dawn Primarolo: I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013. The Ayes were 272 and the Noes were 209, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Dawn Primarolo: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that amongst other EU police, justice and home affairs measures, the UK should remain part of the European Arrest Warrant, the Schengen Information System II, Joint Investigations Teams, EU Council decision 2000/375/JHA on combating internet child pornography, EU Council decision 2002/348/JHA on international football security co-operation, Exchange of Criminal Records and Europol; supports reform to improve the operation of the European Arrest Warrant; and notes that without these measures the UK’s efforts to fight crime and ensure internal national security would be adversely affected.
	Before speaking to the motion, I want to welcome the agreement of the Jordanian Parliament today to the treaty that the Home Secretary has negotiated, which we hope will speed the departure of Abu Qatada.
	Today’s debate is about fighting cross-border crime. It is about whether the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are going to back the police and victims in the fight against cross-border crime or whether they are going to back the Eurosceptics on their own Back Benches who oppose things simply because they have the word “Europe” in the title. It is about whether the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are prepared to show leadership in the national interest, as Downing street claimed it would do in last week’s briefing, or whether they will cave in again. It is about what the Government believe is or is not important in the fight against crime.
	We are still in the dark about the Government’s view on European co-operation, justice and home affairs. We all know that crime does not stop at the channel; criminals do not stop at our borders. There are an estimated 3,600 organised gangs operating across Europe, and they are involved in things such as drugs, human trafficking, online child exploitation and theft. We know, too, that as people trade and travel more than ever, cross-border crime is likely to keep increasing—whether we are inside the European Union or outside it. The police need to be able to keep up. That means they have to be able to deal with European police forces and they have to have a legal framework within which to operate, pursue and share evidence on a legal basis.

Charlie Elphicke: Once again, the Labour party is banging on about Europe. Since it always seems to do so in this place, do the Labour party and the right hon. Lady support invoking the block opt-out? Yes or no?

Yvette Cooper: We have said very clearly that we think a blanket opt-out, which means losing things such as the European arrest warrant or important data co-operation, would present a serious problem. Let me set this out in today’s debate. We know, for example, of the case of an 18-year-old student who was beaten until her eye sockets shattered in an attempted rape in Ireland. Her attacker, Arunas Cervinskas, left Ireland for London, but was returned by the Met three weeks after his
	European arrest warrant was issued. He is now serving an eight-year sentence in an Irish prison. That was the result of the arrest warrant and European police co-operation.
	What is the Government’s position on this? Last year, the Prime Minister said:
	“we will be exercising that opt-out”;
	the Deputy Prime Minister then said, “No, we won’t”; and the Home Secretary said that
	“the Government’s current thinking is that we will opt out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate”—[Official Report, 15 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 35.]
	to opt back in. We know that Conservative Back Benchers have made their view clear: they want to opt out of the lot and do not want to opt back in to any of them. A letter signed by more than 100 Tory MPs says we should opt out of 130 of them. They certainly want out of the European arrest warrant, but what does the Home Secretary think? We have silence from her on what she thinks.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I wonder why the right hon. Lady’s party negotiated the opt-out in the first place.

Yvette Cooper: The Government were given plenty of time to look at all the measures, see whether any of them were redundant and make up their minds. Instead, they are leaving it to the last minute, dithering and putting at risk important measures in the fight against crime, creating immense uncertainty for our police forces. They are still not telling us what their view is on some of the most important measures of all—data sharing, criminal records or the European arrest warrant, for example.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I cannot resist the temptation to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood).

John Redwood: I am very grateful that the right hon. Lady is so attentive. Why does she not understand that what we want is to have democratic accountability to the British people through this House of Commons? We want these things done by agreement between our country and the European Union, but not under European law. Her party gave away 138 vetoes over crucial policy areas, which makes it very difficult to govern this country democratically.

Yvette Cooper: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is really aware of the detailed implications of what he has said. He is arguing for a huge number of different bureaucratic arrangements with every country, whether on extradition or on legal frameworks. Let me give him an example of how the current framework operates. James Hurley, who was convicted of killing a police officer and escaped from custody, was returned two years ago under a European arrest warrant, and is now back in a British prison.

Andrea Leadsom: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way, but then I must make a bit of progress.

Andrea Leadsom: The right hon. Lady keeps talking about these awful situations as though the only possibility were some Europe-wide collective agreement under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Does she not accept that it is perfectly possible for there to be extradition agreements between different countries that do not become subject to the European Court?

Yvette Cooper: It is indeed possible for there to be a huge number of extradition agreements that take long periods to negotiate. Let me give the hon. Lady one example. Before we had the European arrest warrant—when we simply had separately negotiated extradition arrangements—it took 10 years to extradite a suspected terrorist from Britain to France. That is the consequence of the kind of haphazard framework that the hon. Lady wants us to adopt. Meanwhile, we have a European arrest warrant that allows decisions to be made swiftly, and to be made in the interests of the victims of crime.

William Cash: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I certainly cannot resist the temptation to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

William Cash: The right hon. Lady may recall several cases in which British citizens have been caught up in arrest warrants, including one in Staffordshire, where someone was found guilty in absentia and given a monumentally long prison sentence although he was not remotely connected with the murder concerned. There are serious questions to be asked about whether the judiciary, as it is described, is actually run by politicians in certain cases.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. When the European Union Committee in the House of Lords was considering precisely these issues, and discussing cases in which there had been allegations of injustice, it commented:
	“these arose from the consequences of extradition, including long periods of pre-trial detention in poor prison conditions, which could occur under any alternative system of extradition. Relying upon alternative extradition arrangements is highly unlikely to address the criticisms directed at the EAW and would inevitably render the extradition process more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.”

Dominic Raab: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must make a bit of progress first.
	We have been struggling to find out what the Government are actually doing, and what their position actually is on these important measures. Today’s edition of The Guardian gave us some clues. It states that the Prime Minister is expected to opt into 30 to 40 measures, that a deal is being done by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Government Policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who sits in the Cabinet Office, and that
	“the Tories want to opt back in to no more than 29”
	so that they can say that they opted out of 100.
	“The Lib Dems, who had been pressing for… 70…recently settled on a figure of about 45.
	Ministers are planning to split the difference between 45 and 29, meaning the coalition will sign up to about 35 of the measures.”
	This, it appears, is a numbers game. It is no way to decide on serious issues that affect the fight against crime and future justice for victims. However, we think it excellent that the Government have handed over negotiations to the right hon. Member for West Dorset. We recall that the last time the Prime Minister tried that, in relation to Leveson, the Cabinet Office Minister came over to our place and allowed us to draft the policy. We are quite happy to do that again if the Government cannot sort it out.

Keith Vaz: I realise that my right hon. Friend would quite like the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin)to be involved in these discussions, but I am a bit perplexed by the situation. Such an important question should really involve the Home Secretary. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Home Secretary should be there making the deals, rather than the Cabinet Office and the Treasury?

Yvette Cooper: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The issue is immensely important and there must be a question about where the Home Secretary is in these discussions. Where is the voice for British policing? Where is the voice for law enforcement? Where is the voice for British victims? If she is not being heard on behalf of the police and of victims, she is letting them down.
	Let me consider some of the key measures that the Government are threatening to opt out of. The police have said that the most important to them is the European arrest warrant, which gives them the power to arrest people here who are wanted for crimes back home, gives the courts the power to send them swiftly home to face justice, means that police forces abroad will act to arrest suspected criminals who have fled from justice here and means that courts across Europe can send those suspects swiftly back.
	The teacher who ran off to France with a pupil was arrested under the warrant and returned within weeks. The man who tried to blow up the tube at Shepherd’s Bush was quickly returned from Italy. However, as I told the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), it took 10 years of legal wrangling to send a suspected terrorist back to France before the European arrest warrant was introduced.

Andrew Gwynne: Will my right hon. Friend resist the urges of the Government parties to play the game of trying to broker how many measures they can opt in or out of? She is absolutely right to raise the issue of counter-terrorism. Is she aware that about 10% of the work of Europol is related to counter-terrorism? Is that not the compelling reason why we must keep these arrangements in place?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, because terrorists do not respect international borders; they work across them. We know that many of the growing threats to this country involve cross-border crime or terrorism and that is why the police and those who seek to protect us must have the powers and tools to work across borders.
	Let me give another example of the use of the European arrest warrant. The Salford armed robber, Andrew Moran, was found hiding in a villa in Alicante just four weeks
	ago. He had escaped from court after being convicted some years ago, but when the Spanish police found him they were able to arrest him straight away under a European arrest warrant. Let us turn back the clock to Ronnie Knight, the east end armed robber who fled to Spain before the days of the European arrest warrant. He did not have to change his appearance or his identity or hide behind the walls of a villa; he could wander around and do as he liked, because we had no means of getting the Spanish police to arrest him or the Spanish courts to send him home. He was able to open an Indian restaurant and a nightclub, ignoring British justice and the victims of crime.

Julian Huppert: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of the European arrest warrant and we in the Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly want to see it kept. Does she agree that there have been cases in which it has been misused and that it could be improved by a proportionality test and the new Eurobail proposals, which could avoid problems such as Mr Symeou having to spend time in Greece? We must ensure that it works properly.

Yvette Cooper: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some aspects of the warrant should be improved and reformed and there are other areas of European co-operation that we should seek to improve. For example, we should ensure that the European arrest warrant is not used for too many minor crimes. We should also work with other European countries to ensure that when people become victims or suspects of crime abroad, they can be assured of proper legal support and justice. But it is still better to stay in and argue for reform than to pull out of the European arrest warrant when it is so important to our police and to victims.
	The Prime Minister has said in the past that the European arrest warrant is highly objectionable, yet the Association of Chief Police Officers has said that opting out of it means
	“higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”
	What is the Home Secretary’s view? Are we in or out of the arrest warrant? In or out? In the last year alone, Britain sent 900 people back to other countries under an arrest warrant, 95% of whom were foreign nationals. The Home Secretary makes great play of complaining that she cannot send back enough foreign criminals, but now she wants to make it harder to send back people suspected of serious crimes abroad—why?
	The European arrest warrant—in or out? The prisoner transfer framework—in or out? That is the one that means we can transfer prisoners back to their home country without their consent. What about the Home Secretary’s position on joint investigation teams, which have helped to stop a human trafficking ring bringing young Czech women into Britain for prostitution and rape. Thirty-three victims were found and nine people were convicted as a result of a joint investigation team. A similar operation undertaken with the Romanian police stopped a gang trafficking children into the UK and meant that victims were protected. So joint investigation teams—in or out? What about sharing criminal records? The UK has received more than 500 notifications of British citizens convicted in other EU member states who need to go on the sex offenders register here at
	home. I am happy to give way to the Home Secretary if she will stand up and tell us whether she supports the sharing of information about sexual offences so that people can be put on the sex offenders register here. Yes or no? In or out?
	[Interruption.]
	Again we have silence from the Home Secretary, who cannot tell us, whether it be on sharing criminal records or on the European arrest warrant, what the Government’s position is on these vital measures.

Dominic Raab: The Opposition motion refers to eight specific measures out of the 135 or so, so I just want to clarify the Labour party’s position: is it advocating the exercise of the block opt-out and then selectively opting back in, or is it saying that there should be no exercise of the block opt-out at all?

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has not yet told us whether she actually has a workable way to do that, and we wait to see whether she has a workable way to deliver that at all. She has said that she wants a blanket opt-out, but most of her Back Benchers want to opt out of the lot and not opt back into anything. Our clear view is that we should not have a blanket opt-out that puts at risk the European arrest warrant and the crucial things needed for the fight against crime.
	On criminal records, is the Home Secretary in or out? Again we have no answer from her. Sharing alerts on suspected criminals, or trafficking or kidnapping victims, crossing borders—in or out? Minimum standards for tackling online child exploitation—in or out? Information sharing on football hooligans—in or out? Co-operating on seizing criminals’ assets—in or out? Taking account of foreign convictions in court cases—in or out? Working with other countries on dealing with international genocide and war crimes—in or out?

Andrea Leadsom: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Lady if she can tell me about any of those. I understand that her view is to opt out of all of them and then simply on each measure to negotiate individually a separate agreement with every single country. That is her position. Perhaps she can tell me whether she has had any success persuading the Home Secretary of her position or whether the Home Secretary simply does not have a view on any of these matters.

Andrea Leadsom: The right hon. Lady can always intervene on me when it is my debate and my motion, but this is her motion, so I am asking her something. Presumably she is aware that the only alternative is to opt out en bloc—that was the negotiation that her Government agreed when they were in power. So does she intend to opt out en bloc and then opt back into certain measures—if so, which ones? Or does she not intend to opt out at all? She is speaking as though we have the alternative of simply picking and choosing, but she knows, or should know, that that is not the case.

Yvette Cooper: I think that the hon. Lady in not in fact clear about what the position is, because she does not know what she is actually going to be able to opt back into. When Denmark tried to opt out and then opt back into a series of measures half its requests to opt back into measures were refused. That is why we do not believe that anything should be done to
	jeopardise the European arrest warrant, the data sharing and many of the other measures that I have set out today.
	Two different positions are coming from Government Members at the moment. We have a simple position from the Back Benchers, which is that they just want to opt out of everything, and we have a blank sheet of paper from the Front Benchers, whereby they seem to hint that they might opt back into a few things but they will not tell us which. I can tell the House very clearly that, on the European arrest warrant, we should be in. We think that we should be in when it comes to proposals to take account of foreign convictions in our court cases, and when it comes to working with other countries on international genocide, yet we have heard nothing from Government Members on which of these vital measures they support, and on whether they have any workable way of opting back into the proposals.
	The House of Lords European Union Committee looked at all this in some detail, and it says:
	“The European Arrest Warrant is the single most important of the measures which are subject to the opt-out decision…opting out would have significant adverse negative repercussions for the internal security of the UK and the administration of criminal justice in the UK”,
	so why are the Government doing this? The truth is that none of these questions is about crime or justice. All the points that Government Members are raising are about Europe, and the anxiety and hysteria about Europe among Back Benchers. Those Back Benchers want to ditch all European crime and security co-operation, which the police say is vital, and the work that children’s charities say helps victims.
	The Government’s amendment to the motion says that they are looking at the issue, but that we should not worry because there will be a vote before any opt-out is exercised. It would be helpful if they could clarify whether there will be any vote on opting back in again, or whether they are simply planning to have a vote on opting out. They should also tell us today whether they know if they will be able to opt back into any of the measures, and which ones they think are so important that they should not be put at risk.
	The truth is that this is not about crime; this is about politics. This is not about helping victims; it is about division on Europe. For the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to give in to their Back Benchers, who simply want to oppose all things European, would be shameful. It would be ignoring the evidence and expert advice. It would be helping criminals and betraying victims. That is why we are holding this debate and this vote today.
	I want to remind the House what this is really all about. I have an e-mail from Beatrice Jones—the mother of Moira Jones—who set up the Moira Fund to help families. She first got in contact with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, who passed on her concerns to me, and I have spoken to her. She says:
	“I have been appalled to read that a group of Tory MPs is putting pressure on the Prime Minister to use his right to pull out of EU crime and policing, including the EU arrest warrant. You may remember that my beloved daughter Moira Jones was assaulted, abducted, and savagely raped and murdered by an EU national who was allowed to come here in spite of a long criminal record
	of violence. He fled the country but because of the dedication and determination of Strathclyde police along with the cooperation of the Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country. We know that because of much work at the Home Office, with the Border Agency, and with the implementation of the ECRIS”—
	the European criminal records information system—
	“there is more cooperation and information between a much greater number of EU states….We want it to go much further so that another murder like Moira’s cannot occur and we did think that things were moving slowly in the right direction.
	To read of this backward step is simply awful. As long as EU nationals are allowed to freely enter the UK and vice versa, then EU police cooperation is essential for the safety of all. The current system needs further development not to be disbanded.
	Clearly there are those around who have no conception of what it is to lose a daughter in truly horrific circumstances. We continue to struggle and I have persisted in trying to bring about change…But there are things that with the best will in the world, we cannot do….If there is anyway you can do anything to highlight our concerns, I implore you in Moira’s name to do what you can.”
	That is why we are holding this debate today.

Theresa May: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from ‘House’ to end and add
	‘believes that the decision on exercising the UK’s opt out from EU former third pillar measures should be taken in the national interest, with consideration given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms; and welcomes the commitment made by the Minister for Europe on 20 January 2011 to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the Government makes a formal decision on whether it wishes to opt out.’.
	Let me first set out some of the background to this important issue, because judging from the speech that we have just heard, there seems to be some confusion among Opposition Members. Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which the Opposition signed up to, the United Kingdom must decide by the end of May 2014 whether we opt out of, or remain bound by, roughly 130 EU police and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the Lisbon treaty came into force. I provided a full list of those measures to the House on 21 May. The Government are required, under the treaty, to reach a final decision by 31 May 2014, with that decision taking effect on 1 December 2014.
	Let me also set out the commitment that this Government have made on this matter. On 20 January 2011 my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe set out in a written ministerial statement that a vote would be held in both Houses of Parliament before the Government make a formal decision on whether they wish to opt out. That remains the Government position and I am happy today to reiterate our commitment to hold a vote on this matter. That is why I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion as premature, and support the Government’s amendment.

Michael Connarty: The Home Secretary knows that there has been considerable correspondence from the European Scrutiny Committee
	to the Government at all levels asking them to list those measures that they intend to opt into. We have the practical problem of how that will be done. Will we be able to vote to opt in or opt out knowing exactly and in detail what the Government will then opt back into before the vote is taken?

Theresa May: Yes. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is indeed the Government’s intention to provide Parliament with a list of the measures that we wish to opt back into, so Parliament will have that before it votes on the matter.

Alan Beith: The Government have repeatedly said that they want to engage with Select Committees as part of the process, but still, many months after they were promised, we do not have the explanatory memorandums, and Committees are not in a position to plan into their work the consideration that will be required to inform the vote that the Home Secretary has just referred to.

Theresa May: I recognise the point that my right hon. Friend makes. We will supply the Select Committees with explanatory memorandums and the list of measures that the Government propose to opt back into, and we will also discuss with relevant Committees how the vote will be taken in Parliament.

Wayne David: Given the importance of the European arrest warrant, to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding and to achieve maximum clarity, will the Home Secretary say here and now that it is the Government’s intention to opt into the European arrest warrant because she recognises that it is so important to this country?

Theresa May: I will announce what the Government will do in relation to the European arrest warrant at the time that I list those measures that we wish to opt into or not rejoin, so the hon. Gentleman will just have to be a little bit more patient.

Pete Wishart: I hope that part of the consultation will be with the devolved Parliaments, because the Home Secretary will know of the very real concern from the Scottish Government and from Police Scotland about the loss of the European arrest warrant. The Justice Secretary said that could have appalling consequences for Scottish justice. Will the Home Secretary make sure that she consults properly and listens carefully to what Scotland has to say on the matter?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has slightly pre-empted something that I was going to say a little later in my speech, so I will bring it forward in answer to his question. Following my announcement in October, Ministers have engaged with the devolved Administrations and their operational partners. The Minister responsible for security has visited both Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is, of course, a particular issue in relation to Northern Ireland and we are aware of the importance of taking into account any implications that the 2014 decision might have for policing, given the land border with the Republic of Ireland, and we will continue to
	work with both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to ensure that those matters are fully considered.

Stephen McCabe: Have negotiations on the measures that the Home Secretary hopes to opt back into commenced or is she planning to wait until December 2014 and then seek to opt into various measures? Has she had any indication which ones our European partners will accept?

Theresa May: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have listened to the remarks I made earlier in my speech, when I made it clear that a decision by the Government has to be taken by 31 May 2014, while 1 December 2014 is the date by which the opt-out takes final effect, so by definition any negotiations in relation to opt-in must take place before that takes effect.
	This is an important decision, and not one that we should rush into lightly, despite the entreaties of the Opposition. I want to make it clear that no final decision has been made on this matter.

Yvette Cooper: Under what circumstances does the Home Secretary think it would be acceptable to stay out of the European arrest warrant?

Theresa May: I will move on to the principles that the Government will follow when looking at each and every measure and considering whether to opt back in. In her speech, the right hon. Lady made something of an issue about the timetable and asked why we had not yet come to a decision. I refer her to the remarks of the former Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, in the debate on the Lisbon treaty in 2008. She said that
	“on the whole body of police, criminal and judicial measures that are transferred, it is our decision—six months before that five-year period finishes—as to whether we want to continue in those measures, if they have not been renegotiated or repealed during that time. We will make that decision on the basis of whether continuing in those measures, with ECJ jurisdiction, is in the national interest. We have negotiated the ability to make that decision and we have negotiated that transitional period.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 175.]
	That is precisely what this Government are following.
	My statement on 15 October last year set out the Government’s approach: we intend to opt out of all police and criminal justice measures that pre-date the Lisbon treaty and then negotiate with the Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures that it is in our national interest to rejoin. That remains the Government’s position.
	As I explained in a letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in November last year, we will consider how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. We will also consider the impact of each measure on our civil rights and traditional liberties.

Keith Vaz: The Home Affairs Committee certainly looks forward to receiving the list when the Home Secretary has it ready. There is a measure on her desk at the moment concerning Europol that is not related to the opt-in/opt-out issue. It is very important that we sign up to it, because it affects the governance of that
	organisation, and I know that she is a supporter of Rob Wainwright and Europol. Is she now in a position to sign up to that new regulation?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Commission has brought forward some new proposals relating to Europol. Some parts of the proposals cause concern to the Government, and indeed those of most member states across the European Union, but there will be a debate in this House—at the beginning of July, I believe—on whether the Government propose to opt back into that measure. The scrutiny is continuing, but obviously the Government will make clear our position when the debate takes place.

Charlie Elphicke: Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion that what is really going on here is that the Labour party would love to sign up to all this European justice agenda but dares not say so because it is frightened of the UK Independence party?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not at all clear from the shadow Home Secretary’s speech what the Labour party’s position is on this. Does it wish to exercise the opt-out it negotiated, or does it wish to be bound by all the measures? We are at a loss to know where it stands on the issue. I am also at a loss to see what she can object to in the approach I have just set out about the policies and principles we will follow in looking at every single measure. It involves exercising a treaty right that was negotiated by the previous Government. Why on earth did they bother negotiating it if they were not going to use it? The Labour party, when in government, laid the paving stones, but it criticises us for walking down them. I am at even more of a loss in trying to untangle the Opposition’s position from the confusion of today’s debate.

Edward Leigh: On the subject of the Labour party, I think that we need to reassure the public, because the shadow Home Secretary gave a series of grisly examples of murders, people being beaten up and eye sockets being staved in. The implication is that if we are not part of the European arrest warrant none of the perpetrators would be dealt with. Can we at least have a sensible debate and say that those people could be dealt with after reciprocal arrangements are made?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is correct that we have extradition treaties with other countries that are not members of the European Union, and we had extradition arrangements before the European arrest warrant came into place. However, as I set out earlier, we will look at each measure to determine whether it contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. I think that those are entirely sensible principles on which to base the proposals that the Government will bring forward in due course.

John Redwood: Will the Home Secretary also take into account the impact that all these things have on British democracy? Some of us are deeply worried that Ministers do not have enough powers and cannot be accountable to this House because they can be trumped by perverse European Court of Justice judgments.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is right. In looking at these decisions, we have to bear in mind the fact of ECJ jurisdiction, which will now be applicable to these measures but was not when they were originally established. I have to say that one of the more interesting exchanges I have seen this afternoon raised the idea of the shadow Home Secretary being tempted by my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I think that I had better move swiftly on.
	We are now in complete confusion as to whether the Opposition want to exercise the opt-out and whether they want to change anything about our justice and home affairs arrangements. If they do not want to change anything, why does their motion refer to reforming the European arrest warrant? In their motion they list seven measures that they think we should be opting back into, but the right hon. Lady raised other measures that she implied we should opt back into. She talked about party politics. I am afraid that the only party politics lie in calling this debate, and it is the Opposition who want to put narrow politics before the national interest.
	The shadow Home Secretary suggests that our approach, which her own Government set in train, will play into the hands of criminals. That is an outrageous accusation. As Home Secretary, I am absolutely clear in my duty to protect the United Kingdom against crime and terrorism and to keep our borders secure. She said that crime does not stop at the borders, and she is absolutely right. That is exactly why this Government are creating the National Crime Agency, which will be a powerful crime-fighting body that deals with crime across borders, particularly serious organised and complex crime. The UK is a sovereign nation, and we must not carelessly hand over more and more powers to the European Commission or the European Court of Justice.
	It is clearly important that law enforcers have the tools they need to work with our European neighbours and protect the British public. That is why we have been listening to the views of law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies on this matter. The Justice Secretary and I have met representatives from the Association of Chief Police Offices, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the security services, and the Serious Fraud Office, as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are listening to, and taking seriously, what those on the front line have to say. As I said, we have also had discussions with the devolved Administrations. But this is a decision for the Government to take, and we will not absolve ourselves of that responsibility by delegating the decision to others as the Opposition apparently wish us to.
	As I have said to this House previously, under the terms of the treaty signed by Labour, the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said, cannot pick and choose the measures from which we wish to opt out. The shadow Home Secretary may well prefer that we could, but thanks to her party’s negotiation we can only opt out en masse and then seek to rejoin individual measures. Operational experience shows that some of the pre-Lisbon measures are useful, while some are less so and some are now entirely defunct. For example, one measure establishes a directory on organised crime competences that was closed by Europol in February 2012. Although the directory is closed, it remains a measure subject to the
	2014 decision under which, arguably, member states are still obliged to update their contributions to it. We do not see any reason to subject this measure to formal enforcement powers. Some other measures have not been implemented and doing so would require considerable time and money. Not being ready by 1 December 2014 would immediately open the UK up to substantial risk of infraction and the very real risk of being fined millions of pounds.

Michael Connarty: rose—

Theresa May: I am being very indulgent to the hon. Gentleman, but I give way.

Michael Connarty: The Home Secretary is well aware of the position. In fact, her own Government are making quite a hue and cry about the fact that the European Commission can strike out any of these things as redundant and has been doing so for the past three or four years. Regarding this nonsense about being trapped in some directory that does not exist any more, it is very simple: the European Commission can simply strike it out, as it has on many occasions. She might like to consult the Europe Minister, who could inform her of the facts.

Theresa May: I am well aware of what is and what is not in the list of the 2014 decision that we have to take, and the measure that I have referred to is in it.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary is right to refer to that particular directory as being defunct. Arguably, therefore, it is relatively harmless. If she has such a precise view on that measure, will she tell us her view on the European arrest warrant? That, not all the defunct directories, is the central subject of the motion and the most important measure at stake. ACPO has said how crucial it is and it has been used in countless different criminal cases. Why does the Home Secretary seem to be the only person who does not have a view on the European arrest warrant?

Theresa May: Sadly, the right hon. Lady does not seem to understand what the decision is about and, therefore, what her debate is about. Her debate is about the fact that her Government negotiated a situation in which we can either opt out of all the measures and then try to opt back in, or opt into all the measures.
	I have been very open that it would not be appropriate to opt into any measure that we think would take considerable time and money. We will not be in a position to immediately rejoin Prüm, which requires member states to allow the reciprocal searching of their databases for DNA profiles, vehicle registration data and fingerprints, because implementing it fully will take years and require substantial funding. The previous Government estimated that it would cost more than £30 million back in 2007—that figure may well be higher now—and they subsequently did nothing to implement it.
	The shadow Home Secretary’s spurious accusations about the Government’s European policy seem to be a cover for the confusion on her own Benches. I note that in response to a number of interventions she did not clearly state what her own policy is. It seems to be to negotiate an opt-out but not exercise it and to sign up to
	costly measures such as Prüm but not implement them. That is not the sort of leadership that the United Kingdom needs in Europe.

Wayne David: The Home Secretary says that she has had discussions with ACPO. What advice did it give her?

Theresa May: ACPO, as it has made clear to Committees of this House, has set out those measures that it feels will be useful in a policing sense. There is absolutely no secret about what ACPO has made clear.

Dominic Raab: It may help the Home Secretary to know that in its submission to the House of Lords European Union Committee, ACPO reckoned that only 13 of the 135 measures were vital for law enforcement. Is she aware of that and does it not cast a shadow on the spurious law enforcement claims of the Opposition?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that ACPO went on to say that 55 of the measures had no practical effect whatsoever.

Julian Huppert: ACPO said a number of things. It also said that opting out of the European arrest warrant
	“would result in fewer extraditions, longer delays, higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”
	We should take all of ACPO’s advice, not just some of it.

Theresa May: I say to my hon. Friend that, given that I have not published a list, he is not in a position to know which parts of ACPO’s advice I have listened to or not. What I have said is that I have listened to ACPO’s advice and it is absolutely clear that it thinks that a very limited number of measures are beneficial to policing and that a significant number are of no practical benefit whatsoever. We have also listened to a number of other organisations with relevant experience in this particular field.
	The Government have been clear that we must consider the full impact of ECJ jurisdiction on each of these measures. The European Union Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding has made clear that the old third pillar often led to outcomes at the lowest common denominator, mostly in order to secure unanimity. The vast majority of these measures were not negotiated with ECJ jurisdiction in mind, and the drafting often reflects that. We should be very careful about allowing the ECJ to interpret such measures.
	Why do I say that? Because it is for this House to write the UK’s laws. For example, where Parliament agrees with the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, Parliament can pass a law to make its will clear and remedy the effect of that judgment. However, judgments passed down in Luxembourg by the European Court cannot be addressed in this way. Instead, they require a change to EU law, which cannot be brought about by the UK alone. That is an important point for us to consider.
	In the Metock case, for example, the European Court of Justice made a ruling that extended free movement rights to illegal migrants if they are married to a European economic area national who is exercising those rights. Since the Metock judgment, we have seen a steady
	increase in sham marriages involving EEA nationals. However, the UK cannot fix that issue alone, despite there being agreement on both sides of the House.
	Let me be clear: I am not saying that there is never a role for the European Court of Justice. If that was the case, we would never opt into any new measures. However, as a question of policy, we need carefully to consider the Court’s ability to interfere in our criminal justice system and weigh that against any benefits that the measure may bring.
	As the shadow Home Secretary has said on quite a few occasions, the opt-out decision involves the European arrest warrant. I know that that measure is of particular interest to many Members. Let me start by refuting the fatuous suggestion that we would consider opting out of it simply because it has the word “European” in its title. The Government are looking at each measure on its merits and nothing else. When the case is made that a measure is in our national interest, we will participate in it. As I have said previously, we will consider how each measure contributes to public safety and security; whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it; and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if we pursued it by other mechanisms before making a final decision. The European arrest warrant is no different in that respect.
	The arrest warrant has had some success in streamlining the extradition process within the EU. The shadow Home Secretary referred to the arrest last month of Andrew Moran, one of Britain’s most wanted fugitives, by the Spanish police. However, as I set out in my statement in October, there have also been problems. The Government are concerned about the disproportionate use of the arrest warrant for trivial offences and its potential use for action in the United Kingdom in relation to activity that is not considered to be a crime in the UK. We also have concerns about the lengthy pre-trial detention of British citizens overseas.
	The motion and the shadow Home Secretary’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) suggest that the Opposition finally share our concerns about the European arrest warrant and would like to see its operation reformed. If that is the case, the whole Government welcome the admission that Labour got it wrong on the European arrest warrant and I am glad that we will have its new-found support if we wish to make any changes in that regard.
	We may not have had much clarity from the Opposition today, but I am grateful for the opportunity to hear the views of Parliament on this important matter. This Government, more than any before us, have done our utmost to ensure that Parliament has the time to scrutinise our decisions relating to the European Union and that its views are taken into account. As I have said, we have made a commitment to hold a vote in both Houses of Parliament before we take a final decision on the opt-out. That vote will take place in good time before May 2014. However, I remind hon. Members that current and forthcoming proposals in the EU will have an effect on the 2014 decision.

Alan Beith: In giving that assurance, will the Home Secretary indicate when Select Committees will receive the explanatory memorandum that we have been promised for so long?

Theresa May: I am not able to set a date for the right hon. Gentleman. I recognise his enthusiasm for seeing the explanatory memorandum, but we are still looking at the structure of the list of measures that we want to opt back into.
	The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee mentioned the new Europol regulation, which is a good example of the way in which the measures in the 2014 list are being affected. The existing Europol regulation is on the list, but we must decide whether to opt into the new regulation proposed by the European Commission by the end of July. Ultimately, our decision on whether to participate in the new proposal, either at the outset or post-adoption, will determine our long-term participation in Europol. The Government have offered a Lidington-style debate on the opt-in decision. That is a new parliamentary term that I am sure the Clerks will put into Standing Orders at an appropriate time. The debate will be held in the House on 3 July and I look forward to hearing the views of Parliament on that issue.
	Similarly, we expect the Commission to publish proposals on Eurojust and a European public prosecutor’s office shortly. Again, we will have opt-in decisions to make. However, I remind all Members that the coalition agreement could not be clearer on this point: we will not participate in the creation of a new and needless pan-European public prosecutor. That is out of the question.
	What we have heard today from the shadow Home Secretary is another example of her carping while the Government get on with the reforms our country needs. She was the one who said we could not cut police budgets without crime going up, and she was wrong. She was the one who argued against the Winsor review, and she was wrong. She was the one who opposed our immigration reforms, which have already cut net migration by more than a third—she was wrong. On measure after measure, the shadow Home Secretary has been left on her own, moaning from the sidelines.
	The decision on exercising the UK’s opt-out will be taken in the national interest, with questions of public safety and security, and practical co-operation uppermost in our minds. I am delighted to reiterate the commitment made by the Minister for Europe in 2011 to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the Government make a formal decision. In the meantime, the country needs a careful, considered and constructive debate, not the sound and fury we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches today.

Alan Johnson: The Whips will be pleased to know that I support the motion, but I do not have too much problem with the amendment. The problem is the timing of the amendment because it deals with generalities when we need to start talking about specifics, particularly if the Home Secretary’s pledge that this should be a matter for Parliament to decide is to be honoured. Truth to tell, the opt-out in article 10 to protocol 36 was negotiated as an insurance policy to give us the time and ability to look at all the measures. We must remember that police and criminal justice issues were not part of the European Union until the Maastricht treaty—which was agreed by the previous Conservative Government—introduced them, and even then there was no competency for the European Court of Justice. That was a big change, and
	if we could have negotiated the option to look at each individual policy and decide whether to stay in or out we would have done, but that was unachievable. No other country is subject to article 10 to protocol 36, and the transition we managed to achieve is exclusive to this country.
	We are in a process of considering how we deal with this crucial matter. The Home Secretary mentioned that we were getting confused about the timetable. I heard no confusion about that from my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, but the Prime Minister was certainly confused. On 28 September 2012 he said that the opt-out decision had to be made before the end of the year, and he added:
	“We’ll be exercising that opt-out.”
	Soon afterwards in October, the Home Secretary came to the House of Commons to clarify that and say that the Government’s “current thinking” was towards an opt-out.
	In terms of a parliamentary process—remembering that Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal jurisdictions—there was no consultation whatsoever with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Scottish Government, or the Northern Ireland Administration, let alone with Committees of this House, before the Home Secretary announced that Government thinking was to opt out. Given how the process started—the Prime Minister getting the deadline wrong, and the Home Secretary’s lack of any consultation before saying where Government thinking was leading—you will forgive us, Mr Speaker, for having a certain concern about how it is going.
	In July last year, the Foreign Secretary announced a review of competencies between the UK and the EU. Again, we are concerned about how that process is being dealt with, and I struggle to think of the kind of competencies that such a review will address—indeed, there is a fair amount of suspicion that this is some kind of Wilsonian trick. Leaving that aside, one would think that such things would be relevant to the 130 measures to which we must opt in or out. However, the process for the balance of competencies will begin looking at police and criminal justice measures in spring or autumn 2014, after the deadline for the decision to opt in or out has passed. That, to me, is incomprehensible.
	We are, therefore, left with extreme concern about how the current thinking came about and about the absence of proper input from Parliament. Nine months have passed since the Home Secretary’s statement to the House. Apart from a couple of minor points I picked up in her speech today, the position remains exactly as it was nine months ago.
	The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union has produced a splendid report, but without any information from Her Majesty’s Government on the measures they might seek to rejoin when they exercise the opt-out. Conservative Members make a valid point about the importance the Opposition place on the European arrest warrant. In a sense, the suspicion, which might be valid, is that the Opposition would accept the other 129 measures just to keep the precious EAW, and that we believe the EAW is that important. However, we have not heard from the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should have said Conservative Benches. We have not heard from Conservative
	Members their equivalent to the EAW if they opt out completely. If they read the motion from Her Majesty’s Opposition, they will see that we think a number of measures are important. However, I do not get any sense of what measure is worth risking our being unable to opt back in to all 130 measures. Why is the Government’s thinking to opt out rather than to opt in?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman perhaps gives the House a greater insight into Opposition policy than the shadow Home Secretary has. I take it from what he says that he believes Labour party policy is to opt in and not to opt out of any of the measures.

Alan Johnson: My point is that the Government came to the conclusion that they are minded to opt out. We have no idea where that thinking came from—there was no consultation with anyone. It is just as valid for the Government to be minded to opt in, but we have no sense of what big issue prevents them from doing so.
	The Home Secretary said in October and has repeated today that some of the measures are useful, some are less useful, and some are now defunct, but she has never defined which measures are useful. There was a small concession in her speech, but the House of Lords EU Committee—an important Committee of the democratic process—had to do its work completely in the dark, with no sense of what was useful, what was not useful or what was defunct. Eventually, she gave three examples to the Committee of defunct measures, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has said, if the measures are defunct, they are harmless, and we need not worry about them because they will be weeded out and tidied up. The defunct measures are not the important part of the debate; the important part is on useful or not useful measures.
	In its report, the House of Lords Committee, which is not the Labour party—in fact, most members of the Committee have been hostile to the Labour party throughout their political careers—states:
	“The most effective way for the UK to cooperate with other Member States is to remain engaged in the existing EU measures in this area.”
	The Committee’s current thinking, therefore, is to opt in to those measures. It says that clearly and backs it up with strong arguments—it interviewed a cross-section of people, including the Home Secretary.
	The Christmas quiz is this: what is the common theme to all 130 measures? They were all agreed by unanimity. They were all agreed under a system where the UK had the veto. They were all then brought before this House and were agreed by various Committees—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was the Chair of one of them—to be scrutinised. Not a single one of the 130 measures was foisted on the UK against our will by a hostile European Administration. Even if the Euro myth of creating a superstate with an integrated criminal law, as propagated by some of the swivel-eyed loonies, were true, nothing in the 130 measures would contribute towards that aim. In fact, the opposite is the case: the vast majority relate to a mutual recognition of the diverse systems throughout the European Union.
	There is as good an argument for the Government to be thinking about moving towards opting in as opting out, but I am persuadable. I just want to know where
	the Government stand as we get closer to 2014. I want the Justice Committee and the Home Affairs Committee to consider the matter. I want the arguments to be revealed.
	My main concern is the European arrest warrant. I overcame minor antipathy to the other 129 measures to keep it. If we pull out and try to renegotiate, we will be in a much weaker position. The case has been made not just in the House of Lords Committee, but in the Scott Baker report commissioned by the Home Secretary herself. There are things we could do to improve the warrant—a proportionality test was a major issue raised by Scott Baker. I have to say, however, that adopting the European supervision order that would allow British citizens to be supervised in the UK until the trial in the requesting member state is being held would go an awful long way to meeting the objections of Scott Baker and of others on both sides of the House.
	Politics is about the personal more than anything else. The shadow Home Secretary mentioned the savage murder of Moira Jones. I met her mother Beatrice when I was Home Secretary. The current Home Secretary would have had the same difficult job to do. When I met Beatrice Jones, she pointed out to me that the murderer of her daughter fled this country immediately. A European arrest warrant was issued 14 days later. Two days after that, he was arrested in Slovakia and brought to justice. I promised Mrs Jones that I would do my best to ensure that the European arrest warrant remains. I plan to keep that promise.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a pleasure to speak in this welcome debate. We all know that the ability to invoke the block opt-out was negotiated as part of the Lisbon treaty—on which we did not have a vote—by the previous Labour Government. According to the refreshed Government list deposited in Parliament last month, 127 EU laws currently fall under the block opt-out. They are gradually being eaten away, so we will have fewer to debate by next May. They include the European arrest warrant, which has been mentioned and to which I will come in a moment, and legislation defining various criminal offences and rules for associated penalties. There are many measures—with 127 laws, that is to be expected—which is why is important to have this sort of debate on the Floor of the House to enable the House to inform the Home Secretary and others on the Front Bench of its thinking. I therefore welcome the Opposition’s giving us the time to talk about this issue today.
	Under the arrangements introduced by the Lisbon treaty, the UK has to opt out of all of these EU laws en masse—it cannot opt out selectively. If the UK wants to opt out, it must notify the EU of its wish to do so by 31 May 2014 at the very latest, so we have plenty of time for this debate. If the UK does not opt out, under the EU treaties it will become bound by these laws indefinitely—there is no subsequent opportunity to opt out. Furthermore, from December 2014, the European Court of Justice will for the first time gain full jurisdiction over these laws under a change introduced by the Lisbon treaty, meaning that the European Commission could take the UK to the Court for what it believed to be a breach of one of these laws. Consequent rulings from the Court would be binding. In addition, the Court
	could rule on questions about the interpretation of these laws referred to it by UK courts—rulings that would then be applied by British judges.
	Why is that an issue? It was raised by the House of Lords European Union Committee, and one particular case illustrates the great concern about the Court’s judicial activism: the Metock case in 2008. Four nationals of a non-EU state applied for asylum in Ireland, but their applications were rejected. In the meantime, however, the men had married women from other EU states, exercising free movement rights in Ireland, and they reapplied. The Irish Government refused each application, their regulations stating that the rights under the free movement directive did not apply to family members, unless they were already a lawful resident in another member state and seeking to enter Ireland with an EU national or to join an EU citizen in Ireland. The Grand Chamber of the European Court ruled that national legislation could not require the third country national spouse of an EEC citizen to have been a permanently lawful resident in another member state and therefore that they could benefit from the free movement directive. In other words, this highly controversial ruling rewrote EU law and Irish immigration law, so there is a reason to be concerned about the possibility of the Court’s being involved in such decisions.
	If the UK invokes the opt-out, the European treaties allow our country to apply to opt back into particular EU laws covered by it. For most of these laws, a UK application to rejoin would be first considered by the European Commission, but if the Commission did not approve UK readmission, the Council of Ministers could decide, by qualified majority voting among member states bound by the relevant law, to admit the UK. For the remaining laws, which are considered part of the Schengen body of law, a UK application to rejoin is decided by unanimity in the Council, without formal Commission involvement. Opting back in is irreversible. If the UK is readmitted by the EU institutions, it could not opt out of the relevant laws again and the Court would have full jurisdiction over the laws concerned. That is why we have to tackle this sensibly and probably deal with each of the 127 measures in turn.

Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman and I are both members of the European Scrutiny Committee, but he has the advantage on me, in that he was a Member of the European Parliament, and he has obviously looked closely at what happens. It is always a deal, and the question of opting out of something permanently would be balanced by the fact that other countries might wish us to be in it for their advantage—even if we might think it to our disadvantage. In those situations, is it not likely that we would have to do deals and opt into things, such as what he has just illustrated, to get what we want on other things? Is it not time to talk about that sensibly in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the Lords Committee, instead of this smoke and mirrors? We do not have long between now and then to have those kinds of debate and to advise the Government about whether it would be advantageous to do the sorts of deals they might be faced with in the future.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He will know that a Home Office Minister gave evidence to our Committee when we talked about
	that. We were doing our job on that Committee and trying to prise out of the Government, quite legitimately, what the position would be. That is why I have no issue with this debate.
	The Government have said that some of the EU laws subject to the block opt-out are obsolete, and I thought I would list some of them for the benefit of Opposition Members, because there are more than three of them. First, there is the joint action 96/747/JHA on the creation of the directory that the Home Secretary mentioned. There are various laws under the block opt-out that have little or nothing to do with cross-border co-operation. They include framework decision 2000/383/JHA, which defines the criminal offence of currency counterfeiting and sets rules and attendant penalties, and framework decision 2003/568/JHA on corruption in the private sector, which requires member states to criminalise intentionally
	“requesting or receiving an undue advantage of any kind,”
	and so on. These are not great big European deals or blockbusters; they are things that we can take or leave. Indeed, it is questionable whether they needed to be decided at the European level in the first place.
	Numerous EU laws requiring member states to criminalise particular actions oblige them to punish such offences with
	“effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties”—
	an ambiguous phrase that is massively open to interpretation and causes some concern. If the UK deems it necessary to change its criminal law to facilitate cross-border co-operation, we are perfectly able to do so through our own democratic processes. We do not have to sign up to EU control to do so.
	Other EU laws under the block opt-out purport to establish cross-border co-operation. In some cases, laws that sound as though they would be useful do not seem to be so in practice. For example, the Government have said that the UK has not sent any requests to other member states to freeze suspected criminal assets or evidence under framework decision 2003/577/JHA since it was adopted more than a decade ago. There are several laws under the block opt-out that the UK has so far declined to implement fully, sometimes on grounds of cost. They include Prüm decisions, as we heard earlier, which involve the police sharing information such as fingerprints and DNA—perhaps the precursor to a European Prism programme or something like that. In other cases, such as the European arrest warrant, the laws on cross-border co-operation do not have sufficient safeguards for the rights of British citizens. In too many cases, British people have been arrested in the UK under the European arrest warrant and extradited to other EU countries, where they have ended up suffering serious injustices owing to foreseeable problems with the domestic criminal justice systems in those countries.
	There are a number of problems with the European arrest warrant, which have been highlighted by many other countries. The stats are quite simple. Nearly 1,000 requests for a European arrest warrant are issued each month. In 2009, the Serious Organised Crime Agency here in the UK received 4,004 requests for a European arrest warrant to be issued. To put that in context, between 2003 and 2009, the UK extradited 63 people to the United States, whereas in 2009-10, the UK extradited 699 individuals to the EU. Perhaps there is a problem with what the warrants are being issued for, which
	causes a great deal of concern out there in civil society. The fundamental problem for people such as me is the extension of powers to the European Court of Justice. Given our experience of this matter nationally and internationally, we should be wary about that extension.
	Let me try to bust some of the myths about this issue. There is a myth that if we do not opt in, we will lose all co-operation with EU partners on crime and policing. By opting out en bloc, we avoid sacrificing UK democratic control over 127 crime and policing measures to the European Commission and European Court of Justice. We can opt back into those measures that serve the UK national interest. This is an opportunity to re-cast our relationship, so that it is based on practical law enforcement co-operation but is not part of the EU Commission’s drive towards a single EU criminal code, enforced by a European public prosecutor and the European Court of Justice. I can remember debates in the European Parliament nearly a decade ago in which a single European criminal code and a European public prosecutor were talked about very seriously.
	Another myth is that the UK needs to give the European Commission and European Court of Justice the last word on UK crime and policing policy to strengthen public safety. One of the UK’s closest security relationship is with the United States, yet we do not give the FBI or the US Supreme Court supranational control over our policy making, so why should do the same we in this case? Another myth is that we could lose vital areas of co-operation such as data sharing on criminal records. That is rubbish. We have always co-operated on those matters.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I spent many a good time in a bar in Strasbourg. Doubtless we will both be extradited back there at some point for the crimes of the past.

Chris Bryant: In that case, we might have to exchange criminal records; and I am sure that he has bought many. When I arrived in Parliament in 2001, the police in this country were crying out for the exchange of criminal records with countries such as Poland that subsequently became members of the European Union, particularly in relation to child sex offenders. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that that situation has now completely changed?

Chris Heaton-Harris: That is a fair point that I take on board in this debate.
	I am slightly concerned by the Opposition’s tendency to say that we would be unable to extradite to European countries if we opted out of these measures, or that each extradition case would take 10 years. I believe that we could consider opting back into the European arrest warrant, but only after it had been reformed so that it no longer sacrificed UK citizens to face incompetent justice systems, as in the Colin Dines case; corrupt police, as in the Andrew Symeou case; or appalling prisons, as in a number of cases. We should seek to reform the European arrest warrant, and then have a sensible debate about whether we should opt back into it once it had been reformed. A number of other European
	countries want to reform it, including Germany, France and the Netherlands. Picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), I do not think that our EU partners would want to lose such a major partner as the UK in a field in which we have unique expertise, intelligence and experience.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is better to achieve change on the European arrest warrant by co-operating with other countries?

Chris Heaton-Harris: That is exactly what this Government are doing, so I have no issue with that point, or with what the Government are doing.
	There is concern that the opt-out is all about ideological hostility to the European Union. I do not accept that, especially coming from Labour Members. The last Government signed up to a vast array of measures without putting in place any proper means of empirically assessing or evaluating their benefits to this country. They simply signed away power after power. I actually think it is quite nice to see this Government properly scrutinising an important decision on policing and criminal measures in this way. I welcome this debate and I look forward to its continuing over the next year or so. I also look forward to voting on these proposals, because it is right that this Parliament should eventually decide for itself whether we have the block opt-out or not.

Meg Hillier: I had the privilege of serving in Her Majesty’s Government for three years as a Minister in the Home Office, negotiating justice and home affairs issues to ensure that our country was a safer place. I had the great privilege of working with the Home Secretary’s two immediate predecessors, both of whom were excellent Home Secretaries who had the interests of the public very much at heart. I therefore have enormous respect for the position of Home Secretary, and I extend that respect to any incumbent in the role because I know the challenges they face. I believed this Home Secretary when, on taking on the job, she said that she took her role of protecting the public very seriously. I therefore have to ask why she is playing such games with the safety of the British public in her approach to the opt-out on justice and home affairs issues. Is this an example of dog-whistle politics as she burnishes her credentials in preparation for taking over from the Prime Minister in due course? If so, she is not doing very well today, given that not many of her Eurosceptic friends have even bothered to attend the debate or listen to her speech.
	We need to look closely at the proposals. The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) talked about the rights of British citizens in relation to these EU measures. I want to talk about the rights of British victims, which should be at the heart of what any Home Secretary does. If we were to opt out of all the justice and home affairs measures, we could in theory opt back into certain mechanisms. However, it is important to make it clear that that is not an automatic right. Because so many EU member states rightly support the European arrest warrant, there is a strong likelihood that they would agree to a UK opt-in on that particular issue.
	Let us be clear about what the Government are saying to us. They are not clear on a lot of points, but on one thing they are quite clear. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and many other Conservatives on both the Back and the Front Benches are telling us that they will negotiate, or renegotiate, an entry into the European arrest warrant on more favourable terms, or stay out of it. At least, that is what the hints we have heard suggest—nothing very concrete, but that is what has come through in numerous debates in this House.
	The reality, however, is that the treaty does not allow for automatically amending the European arrest warrant. We know that it is popular among other EU member states and it has been hard fought for and hard negotiated. As the hon. Member for Daventry highlighted and as others have said, there is a mood for change here and there in how the arrest warrant works, but that is much better done by all 27 nations working together in justice and home affairs Councils and negotiating together to make any amendments. That is better than the UK going it alone, but the UK going it alone is the sort of dog whistle approach that this Government adopt, ensuring that they talk in any language that will appeal to the Eurosceptic Back Benchers of the Conservative party rather than talk about the safety of the British public.

Michael Connarty: I want to confirm that my hon. Friend’s analysis is accurate. Along with other members of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have just returned from Lithuania where the Lithuanians were being harangued by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) about how everyone in Europe was turning against the EU, how we are all going to withdraw and he gave the example of the opt outs. They could not believe that any UK parliamentarian could talk about withdrawing from what, as my hon. Friend says, was a hard-negotiated agreement.

Meg Hillier: Absolutely. In my three years of negotiations, I was certainly struck by how positive other EU member states were in comparison with our Eurosceptic parliamentarians about the benefits of being members of Europe. We need to be really clear that there is no guarantee that we will be able to amend and then opt back in later. Even if that were to happen, there is no timetable for it, and we could be left uncovered for a period of time. We would have to negotiate 26 separate treaties with our EU colleagues. I cannot see them being very positive about that. Even when we were in government, I was told many times by my European colleagues that the UK was trying to have its cake and eat it. Through detailed and hard-working negotiation across government, however, we made sure that we got the best deal we could for the British public. My personal view is that we need to opt in; we need to amend, if necessary, on a cross-EU 27-member-state basis.
	I am still puzzled about why the Home Secretary is lending her name to this risky game and why we are seeing such strong anti-European rhetoric from the Prime Minister. Perhaps it is all about Conservative Back Benchers and the threat to this Government of the UK Independence party. This Home Secretary and this Prime Minister are gambling with the security of the British public and the rights of victims—and we need to make that crystal clear.
	That brings me to the other part of this coalition Government. The Liberal Democrats are now a party of government. That sometimes seems difficult to believe, but it is the case. We hear very little from Lib Dem Members, so I was heartened to hear from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that he is pro the European arrest warrant. That is not the impression I gained about Liberal Democrats in my full eight years in Parliament, so it is great to hear that and I look forward to his speech. He has talked about making some technical amendments, so the question for the hon. Gentleman when he stands up to speak on behalf of his party tonight is, “will they or won’t they?” Will the Lib Dems support the rights of British victims by voting with us, or will they sit on the fence as they often do and hedge their bets?
	The UK’s reputation in Europe is also put very much at risk by this approach. Over the years, we have built up a strong reputation as good negotiators, using our influence in a positive way—for the UK in Europe, but also for Europe more widely. The Home Secretary has not really answered the questions about the support and role of the devolved Administrations. When I was negotiating for the Government, I would be accompanied by members of those devolved Administrations who would be at our side as we discussed and negotiated. What sort of discussions has the Home Secretary had?
	I do not have time to go into all the measures today, but it is important that Prüm was mentioned. There were arguments about how it was handled and how the technical and IT administration was carried out, but it will nevertheless introduce important protections. At present, those in this country who, in a global world, employ people from abroad do not know much about where those people have come from, and do not know whether they have criminal records. Proper data exchange can make our country a safer place.
	It would be good to know when the House of Commons will vote on the opt-out. As many Members have pointed out, we are within a year of making a final decision, and we shall need to discuss the issue at length. There are barely six weeks before the summer recess, and we shall want to look at the details of the Government’s proposals. I should have thought that, in three years, the Government would have got further than they have. We need to see full details of the opt-in measures; when we will see those? How will the Liberal Democrats vote? That is another important question, which I hope will be answered by the hon. Member for Cambridge. Finally, what is the Home Secretary doing to protect victims?
	We are not a teenage debating society. We are talking about real, serious measures that would protect or threaten the British public and other citizens in Europe. We need to ensure that the debate continues beyond today, and that we winkle out of the Government much more detail than they have been prepared to offer on this occasion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I did not impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, because I hoped that self-discipline would suffice, and in significant measure it has. Let me simply point out that five Members are seeking to catch my eye, and there is less than half an hour left, so the self-denying ordinance is now especially important.

Julian Huppert: I find myself in a very unusual and difficult position: I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). I do not know whether he or I should be more alarmed by that, because we do not often agree when we discuss things.
	I believe that the European police and judicial co-operation legislation structure has been good for Britain over the last 15 years, and I should like us to continue to be involved with it as much as possible. I think it a shame that we have the oddities of the Lisbon treaty. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the problems involved in negotiation. It would be much better not to have the block opt-out, but we are where we are. It is a shame that we were not left with something easier to work with.
	What do the public think? Seventy-seven per cent. of them think that the UK should work “very closely” or “fairly closely” with the EU on counter-terrorism, policing and border security, while only 9% think that we should not. I am sure that the Members—most of them on the Government Benches—who always argue that we should listen to the public’s views on Europe would agree that we should listen to them in this instance, and hence stay firmly involved. Some of those on the Eurosceptic fringe have concerns, but I disagree with them. I believe that working with Europe helps us to extradite foreign criminals and bring back those who are suspected or convicted of crimes, and enables us to share information, intelligence and best practice. However, the deadline is approaching.
	My current position is that it seems much cleaner, much easier and much simpler not to opt out at all. If we did not opt out, we would not have to go through the negotiation, there would not be the risk of not being able to get back in, and we would not face the potential costs of doing so. The Home Secretary rightly observed that some of the measures were useful, some were less so and some were defunct. That is true, but we can cope with the defunct ones. We do not have to worry too much about them. I was disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary did not take that line, although the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle did. However, I realise that the Home Secretary cannot simply do as I suggest because of her problems within her own party. It is therefore appropriate for us to look at the details, and to focus on the most important aspects.
	We must listen to the experts, such as the Association of Chief Police Officers. A senior former police and security chief has said that pulling out of many of these measures risks putting national security, public safety, and the UK’s reputation and international leadership in this area at risk. Commander Allan Gibson of ACPO has said:
	“When you need to have someone arrested abroad, it”
	—use of the European arrest warrant—
	“is a simpler, faster and more certain process of getting a person before your courts. The police service benefits from that. It is much easier than what went before.”
	That has been said many times, and I agree wholeheartedly. I definitely want us to remain within the European arrest warrant.
	It is interesting to see some—although not all—Conservatives who pride themselves on being tough on crime taking a very “soft on crime” approach in this instance. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to take the “tough on crime” line quite clearly and distinctly, because this does matter. The European arrest warrant has been used in many cases, some of already been mentioned. For instance, Hussain Osman, one of the individuals involved in the attempted bombings in July 2005, was brought back from Italy under the arrest warrant.
	The European arrest warrant could certainly be improved. It is not perfect and I agree with many of the criticisms levelled at it. It is clear that we need a proportionality test and I think we should go ahead with the Eurobail approach to allow foreign criminals to be extradited to their home countries on bail while awaiting trial. That would mean that British citizens awaiting trial overseas could spend that time here and that foreign citizens awaiting trial could go back to their home countries before coming back. Those sound like sensible improvements and I think that we should have them. If we stay inside those systems, we can improve them and have a European arrest warrant that is much better.
	Procedures such as Europol and Eurojust are key. For me, the absolute red lines are the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust. That is one reason I prefer the Government amendment as a way towards my vision, because the motion completely omits Eurojust from the list. Although they both offer a way forward, I slightly prefer the one that sets out the procedures rather than just a list.
	It would be harder to negotiate on some of these matters externally, given the tenor of the interactions between the Government and other European countries, and it is important to work with people on a more friendly basis from within the circle rather than from outside it. Eurojust is not often talked about, but it offers us huge benefits. Some 29 joint investigation teams involving Eurojust have made a huge difference to the safety of our country. How would we do that work if we were to opt out?
	The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) asked for some clear positions. I hope that I have been as clear as possible—and certainly clearer than some—that we must be in the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust and that the European arrest warrant must be improved to make it more workable to support British citizens and others. So many other things are important: customs co-operation, the European criminal records information system, financial penalties, Schengen II, the European police training college—the list goes on and on. I agree with those who have mentioned dealing with child pornography, the subject of our earlier debate, and football disorder. We should be taking a lead.
	We must consider the debate without some of the hyperbole that has drifted in. This is not a question of whether we should be in or out of the EU—that is a completely different discussion, which we will have—but of whether we want our country to be safe and secure and to be able to co-operate to achieve that. My position and that of my party is clear.
	I started my speech with a slightly awkward confession, when I said that I agreed with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. I must say that I think the Home Secretary will get this one right. I
	think that when we have the final list she will listen to the powerful advice given by the police, the security chiefs and this House and will agree that we need to stay in the European arrest warrant, in Europol and in Eurojust. I look forward to voting for that when she does.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) who, along with other Members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, will consider the list of opt-ins and opt-outs when the Home Secretary eventually sends it to the Committee, to the Select Committee on Justice and to the European Scrutiny Committee. I agree with a lot of what he said. International co-operation in the EU is vital and Europol and Eurojust are important. I have just returned from a visit to Europol and was very impressed by the work done by Rob Wainwright and his team. I am glad that the Home Secretary is giving the House another opportunity to debate the issue in July before she decides whether to sign the important regulation that will allow us to be part of framing the next steps for Europol.
	I congratulate the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), on all the work they have done. My thanks go more than to anyone else to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for giving us the chance to discuss this measure in her precious Opposition time—and to do so in prime time, rather than at the end of the day, which is when we normally discuss European issues. I repeat what all other right hon. and hon. Members have said about the importance of data-sharing, of knowing who is coming into our country and who is going out and of ensuring that those who have committed crimes and need to be returned to their country are returned as quickly as possible.
	European co-operation also means that if there are problems with certain measures, we should consider them. There are problems with the European arrest warrant, although not with the principle or vision behind the scheme. We certainly need it, for the reasons given by the shadow Home Secretary. The difficulties are that some EU countries are issuing European arrest warrants for fairly trivial offences and at the moment each extradition under the European arrest warrant costs £18,000. The total cost to the British public in 2012 of actioning these warrants was £27 million, and figures from the Council of Europe showed that other European countries made 6,760 extradition requests to Britain in 2011—that is more than 130 a week, representing a 48% rise year on year.
	I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) will speak in this debate, but since he came into the House he has highlighted the importance of this issue, and other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have given specific examples of when their constituents have not been, in their view, fairly treated by the operation of the European arrest warrant.
	In the same 12 months when the 48% year-on-year rise took place, the United Kingdom made just 205 requests for suspects wanted for crimes here and only 99 were handed over. Poland generates four in every 10 arrest warrants sent to Britain, and there has been an example of someone being extradited back to Poland and charged with stealing a wheelbarrow. I do not know whether that justifies £18,000 of taxpayers’ money, but it seems like a lot of judicial time and expense for something fairly trivial. So I am glad that the motion talks about not only supporting the European arrest warrant, but reforming it, because asking individual countries such as Poland to think carefully about what they are doing is extremely important.

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. Does he accept that one of the problems from Poland is that the Polish prosecution service does not have the discretion not to prosecute? Does he also accept that the work going on within the European Union with Poland has led to a 40% reduction in applications? Their number is still too many, but it is declining.

Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that and it explains why part of the process is to talk to these countries and bilaterally engage, not on how they could improve their system, because that would be too patronising, but by explaining the effect their system is having on our country. That is why I welcomed your recent historic visit to Romania, Mr Speaker, when you were the first Speaker of the House of Commons to address the Romanian Parliament in session. The importance of your visit and of the discussions that my right hon. Friend has mentioned is that we can try to persuade other EU countries of the need to co-operate. With Romania, that came through Operation Golf; it came through smashing those gangs that had ensured that so many young Romanian women and men had been trafficked. If we do not have this dialogue, it cannot work.
	There are a few months left before this Government bring the measures before the Select Committees. I know that it is the Home Secretary’s decision, but the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), is very assiduous, and I know he enjoys appearing before the Home Affairs Committee—and we enjoy having him—so I say to him that we would prefer that not to be done the week before the House votes, as is sometimes the case. Until I raised the issue of Europol with the Home Secretary she had not replied to my letter and told me that there was going to be a debate on Europol in the first week of July.
	I am sorry if I sound like the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—perhaps I am turning into him—but the issue is that Parliament cannot scrutinise the measures in the European Parliament, and that is why the EU gets such a bad name; we get these measures in the British House of Commons far too late, we do not have enough time to debate them, only the usual suspects turn up at the debate and people think there is something wrong with all of us just because we want to talk about European issues. So the best way to avoid that is to let us have this list quickly.
	We are deciding on our programme in the Home Affairs Committee and we are going to visit to Poland to talk to the Polish chief justice and others, including
	the judges. These are the people who are issuing the European arrest warrants in such numbers—as I said, 40% of these warrants come from Poland. We can arrange all that only if we know when the list will come to us. I hope that when the Minister winds up we will have a decision on that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There is approximately five minutes for each of the three remaining speakers.

Stephen McCabe: I regret the nature of the amendment, because the Opposition motion is a genuine attempt to help the coalition. It would have been helpful if the Home Secretary had revealed, as we have done, the key measures that she supports. This distasteful horse-trading to see if there is some compromise, or a handful of measures that the Government can agree on, is a very funny way to handle the issue of crime and security. If the Government accepted our motion, they would be agreeing to the European arrest warrant, but of course they cannot, because the last Conservative manifesto was against it. That is why the Home Secretary is having to duck and dive. The Government would be supporting joint investigation teams; agreeing to joint action on internet child pornography, which worries so many of us; and agreeing to joint action on drugs, people trafficking and football security—all things that we should be able to support.
	Nearly 10% of Europol’s work involves counter-terrorism, and the UK is involved in more than 200 Europol investigations into organised crime and terrorism. Surely that is right. I want concerted action to tackle the 3,500 or so criminal gangs active across Europe. They do not recognise national boundaries, and we should not be obstacles to cross-border action to deal with those people.
	The Government’s position is riddled with inconsistencies. Government Members say that it does not matter if the European arrest warrant is lost, because extradition can be organised through the 1957 Council of Europe convention, but that would require decisions to be taken by Governments, not judges, and that is the very role that the Home Secretary wants to give up in relation to extradition.
	Of course, the UK has already opted into post-Lisbon measures concerning the sexual exploitation of children and procedural safeguards for suspects and victims. Will we end up being obliged to agree to assist in the investigation of particular crimes at the request of EU states, but unable to make arrests or share key information at vital points in the inquiries?
	If the coalition cannot decide on its position soon, we will have to opt out of all the measures and rely on the approval of 26 other countries to let us opt back in on a case-by-case basis. What happens if the anti-European hysteria makes opting back in much more difficult? The Government risk placing the needs of the coalition and Tory Eurosceptics ahead of the security and justice concerns of the people of this country.

Dominic Raab: I welcome the Home Secretary’s speech and the broad strategic approach that she outlined. For my part, I want Britain
	to be a strong operational partner in Europe, but I do not believe that we need to give up democratic control over such a vital policy area to achieve that. We should consider all measures against the criteria of the UK’s national interest.
	Few would object to European-wide criminal record checks to protect the public, but signing up for pan-European data sharing on every ordinary citizen is Orwellian and dangerous. As the UK’s surveillance of its people has expanded, data sharing with EU Governments has exposed the innocent to far greater risk. The classic case is that of Peter Hamkin, a Liverpool bartender wrongly arrested in 2003 for murdering an Italian woman because of a botched DNA match. He never set foot in Italy. New EU regulations risk a flood of such cases. Brussels wants foreign police to have access to the details of 38 million motorists on the UK Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database, as well as DNA and fingerprint records. Even the Commission concedes in its impact assessment that systemic flaws could lead to false matches sucking the innocent into foreign investigations. Everyone has been so sensitive about this, but the raw truth is that I do not trust the criminal justice systems or safeguards in many EU countries; I am thinking particularly of some of those on the periphery of the EU, but also some of the long-standing members.
	According to the Association of Chief Police Officers, only 29 of the 135 EU measures that are subject to the block opt-out benefit UK law enforcement at all, and of those only 13 are vital. Far from enhancing law enforcement, the vast majority of measures that the previous Government signed Britain up to were utterly pointless. That is what ACPO’s evidence means. [Interruption.] It clearly does, but I will not take an intervention because of the time. We do not need to be part of efforts to harmonise national law in areas such as drugs or corruption, and certainly not in areas that cover free speech.
	The EU spews out legislation, but where is the evidence that it delivers? The previous Government never had proper impact assessments or evaluations of it. Let us take one example—the six laws on corruption under the EU. Transparency International says that EU standards have barely budged over a decade. In fact, corruption got worse in 10 countries. Then there was the push on criminal justice standards, whereas Fair Trials International found that violations of pre-trial rights trebled across the EU in the past four years and unfair trials doubled. Hyperactive supranational legislation has proved a fig leaf for the lack of national institutional capacity building that really raises standards of justice for all Europe’s citizens.
	I spent three years in the Foreign Office in The Hague monitoring Europol and Eurojust. I have no problem at all with a college of prosecutors or police officers engaging in practical authority-to-authority co-operation, but that is a snapshot of the present, and the question is where all this is leading. There is already a new EU regulation on Europol and one is expected on Eurojust. They are clearly envisaged by the Commission—I have the draft policy papers here—as stepping stones towards a pan-European criminal code enforced by Europol and Eurojust, backed up and interpreted by the European Court of Justice. We need to look not just at the current state of co-operation, but where this is headed.
	The most controversial measure is, of course, the European arrest warrant. I understand entirely that police rely on it and I understand that it has expedited process, but Commander Gibson of the Metropolitan police has highlighted the fact that
	“resources are stretched dealing with the amount of EAWs we receive”,
	because the regime is utterly lopsided. The number of hon. Members who complain about the lopsided nature of US extradition, yet turn a blind eye, because of their Europhilia, to the EAW is quite remarkable, so let me give them the facts. For every EAW that Britain issued in 2011, we got 33 back. We receive a third of all European arrest warrants.
	I know from many cases—that of Andrew Symeou and in my own constituency the case of Colin Dines—the extremely rough justice that perfectly innocent people have been through. Why? Because we cannot trust the justice systems in many countries. It is not just the new members. Italy and Greece have incompetent justice systems and appalling prison conditions, and we are and have been hanging our citizens out to dry for far too long. We need reform and the strongest way to press for reform is to opt out and, as a condition of opting back in, to insist on a number of basic safeguards. The proportionality test has been mentioned, and there are other safeguards.
	The EAW is supposed to allow hit-and-hope warrants that involve extradition for the purposes of investigation, rather than prosecution. That happens all the time. I have proposed amendments, which Members in all parts of the House thought would be a good idea, to enact in UK law a basic safeguard to make sure that extradition under the EAW can take place only in a case that is trial-ready, for prosecution and not for investigation, yet we have never achieved that. If we want to exercise some leverage over our European partners, who get much more out of the system reciprocally than we do—I accept that there is a strong law enforcement advantage to the UK—we should use our leverage from the block opt-out to press for those reforms.
	We should not take into account only what the police say. We do not live in a police state. Their view is very important, but we should also take into account the views of the most senior extradition judge in this country, Lord Justice Thomas, who told the Baker review that the EAW system has become “unworkable”, that unfairness is a “huge problem” and that there is widespread consensus among the judges in northern Europe that this is a problem, but there is obviously great sensitivity, and sensibilities, among some of the Mediterranean countries.
	Beyond the individual cost-benefit analysis of these measures, we need to grasp the big picture and the long term. EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso has made it clear that he wants a pan-European criminal code, enforced by the Commission and the European Court, and an EU public prosecutor. If we want to preserve our common law system and democratic oversight in this vitally sensitive area, is now the right time to seek broader and more flexible arrangements for co-operation?
	That is why this specific opt-out decision should not be divorced from the need to renegotiate Britain’s wider justice and home affairs relationship. There are plenty
	of precedents. We are not a full-blown member of Frontex, but its executive director has said
	“we do not see any difference between our UK colleagues and the others”.
	That is a good example of where we co-operate operationally but do not need to be signed up, lock, stock and barrel, with all the cessation of democratic prerogatives that that involves.
	The way this has been presented as some kind of life-threatening problem for UK law enforcement is incredible, when one thinks of our relationship with authorities outside Europe. The strategic alliance group, which includes Britain, the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, collaborates on cybercrime and intelligence under a non-binding framework. Frankly, Brussels is the odd one out in insisting on a Faustian bargain that requires us to sacrifice democratic control as the price of co-operation.
	The ideologues in this debate are not those calling for a renegotiation in justice and home affairs, based on operational co-operation rather than supranational control, but the dogmatic Europhiles who would blindly sacrifice British standards of justice and democratic accountability when the law enforcement case is so utterly weak.

Graham Jones: I will try to make some brief comments in the short time available. I walked up and down many streets in Hyndburn and Haslingden during the recent county council elections, and it was clear to me that many people are unaware of how important the European arrest warrant is, so this debate is welcome. Among those constituents who had some knowledge of the EAW, there was universal support for it.
	As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) have pointed out, there are some 3,600 organised criminal gangs active in the EU, and they are involved in drugs, human trafficking, online child exploitation and theft. Cross-border crime is a reality, and we need 21st-century tools to meet the challenge.
	We all remember Spain’s costa del crime, where British nationals wanted for serious crimes would simply buy a luxury pad and put their feet up, safe in the knowledge that they were beyond the reach of UK law. In 2002 the BBC suggested that some 230 criminals were hiding out in Spain. How things have changed. Last month The Daily Telegraph ran a story with the headline, “Why Spain’s Costa del Crime is now the worst place to go on the run”. It reported:
	“Once a land of Ferraris, cocaine and women, it was the flashy destination of choice for the most notorious fugitives of Britain’s underworld. Now, as the arrest of Andrew Moran shows, Spain’s ‘Costa del Crime’ is the worst place to go on the run”.
	These are important issues for our national security and public safety. Sadly for my constituents, the Government have stated that they will opt out of everything but have not been clear about which measures they will opt back into. Their position, in my view, is utterly confused. My constituents are concerned that opting out of these measures will affect public safety. Sadly, the Conservatives seem to be in hoc to their Europhobic
	Back Benchers, who prioritise getting rid of anything with the word “Europe” in the title regardless of what value it has.
	Policing and criminal justice co-operation strengthens our national security and means we can identify dangerous people coming into the UK. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) highlighted, Hussain Osman, who was identified as a suspect in the failed bomb attack at Hammersmith tube station on 21 July 2005, was extradited on a European arrest warrant and sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment. According to David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, there are a number of EU
	“measures relevant to counter-terrorism that are considered by SO15 to be essential tools”.
	We must be mindful—this has been commented on already—that 10% of Europol’s work is related to counter-terrorism.
	It is crucial to our future that there are strong powers to tackle cross-border crime and prevent criminals from using the UK as a haven. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) mentioned Operation Golf, which involved the Metropolitan police and the Romanian national police and tackled a Romanian gang that was trafficking children into the UK for the commission of crime. It resulted in the arrest of 126 suspects for a wide range of offences, including human trafficking, benefit fraud, theft, money laundering and child neglect, and 272 trafficking victims were identified.
	Over 600 criminals have been returned to the UK to face British justice for crimes they have committed here. Over 500 UK nationals convicted of sex offences in other EU states since 2006 are now managed in the UK within the sex offender management system, including paedophiles who without EU co-operation on crime may well have escaped justice. Exchanging criminal records is crucial to discovering serious offenders who have come to the attention of the police. Operation Veerde, a joint collaboration between the UK and the Czech Republic on human trafficking and rape of young women, resulted in 33 victims being located in the Czech Republic and nine suspects indicted and convicted in England on behalf of both states.
	Combating internet child pornography has been part of collaborative EU policing. ACPO has said that the Schengen information system is a vital measure that the UK is already heavily committed to, and as such it is vital that we opt back into it. Easy access to this information will enable the UK to exchange information across Europe in real time in order to fight cross-border crime and rapidly repatriate UK criminals who have fled to other EU countries. This is not just about capturing British criminals who are attempting to hide within the EU. The UK has deported over 4,000 criminals under the EU arrest warrant, 95 of whom are foreign nationals removed from the UK. That is a considerable number of foreign prisoners who no longer languish in British prisons.
	My constituents will suffer if polluted anti-European politics result in this Government withdrawing from effective EU cross-border policing measures. That risks sex offenders, child traffickers and violent criminals, as well as foreign criminals, escaping justice and could result in their being on the streets of my constituency and all other hon. Members’ constituencies.

Chris Bryant: This has been an interesting debate, although we are absolutely none the wiser about the Government’s policy. I am delighted that the Home Secretary has come back into the Chamber; perhaps she will be able to provide us with some answers later.
	Last year the Prime Minister said that he would be exercising the opt-out, then the Deputy Prime Minister disagreed, and then the Home Secretary said that the Government’s current thinking was to opt out. We have therefore tabled an Opposition motion to try to tease out the Government’s position and precisely what they intend to do, because we know that this is a matter of national security. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), was absolutely right when he said not long ago that we should not be naive about the process of renegotiation if we want to opt out and then opt back in. As he said, the Commission would attach conditions—for instance, it might allow us to join groups of related measures, some of which we like while others we might not.
	Our view is that thus far this has been a pretty shabby process. When we tried to enable the House to debate the European arrest warrant during the progress of the Crime and Courts Bill, Government Ministers and Back Benchers talked out the debate so that we never managed to discuss the matter at all. All the relevant Committees in this House and in the House of Lords have complained that they have been given negligible information by the Government. We have been given no clarity of any kind as to what measures they might be considering opting into—not even a clear idea on their final resolution of whether they intend to opt out in general—and we had no clarity today.
	We still have no clarity about what kind of votes we are going to have. The Home Secretary trumpeted the fact that last year the Europe Minister, who is in his place, charming chap that he is, said that we would have a vote in both Houses. However, he did not say whether they would be binding votes—just that they would be votes before the Government made their final decision. He did not say whether the votes would be on a list of what we are to opt into and opt out of. He did not say whether they would be on amendable motions. He did not say what would happen if one House voted one way and the other House voted the other.
	The truth is that a double tug of war is going on, as we know from The Guardian today. The first is between the two sides of the Government—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is great that the man who actually boasts of having invented the poll tax when he worked at No. 10 under Mrs Thatcher is now in charge of these negotiations as the Minister for Government Policy. The other tug of war is between Conservative Members, some of them on the ultra-right and some on the moderate right. Some might be referred to historically as the H-block—the Heaton-Harris and Hannan end of the Conservative party. It reminds me of the Old Testament—two women claim that a baby is theirs and it is only when Solomon says that the baby should be cut in half that one of them owns up. I am worried that the Government’s policy-making process means that they are simply playing a numbers game in which they spin different things to different parts of the media and the end result will be that British security will lose out.
	It is all pretty sad, really, because historically the United Kingdom has led and campaigned for greater co-operation on many of these issues in the European Union. It is a simple matter of fact that ease of travel, faster telecommunications and the ability to send money from one country to another much faster mean that no country is hermetically sealed any more. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said, criminality does not stop at the channel. When I first typed out that sentence, it said, “does not stop at the Chanel”, which is rather different.
	On joint investigation teams, our advances in recent years and the increased number of such teams mean that we are able to tackle forms of criminality that we were never able to deal with before.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers has been mentioned many times. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) that, just because a police officer says something, that does not necessarily mean that we need to put it into law. However, ACPO has pointed out:
	“The presence of fugitives from justice fleeing to the UK is a significant public safety issue.”
	It stands to reason that if we make it more difficult for people to be extradited from this country by resiling from the European arrest warrant, we will, in effect, open ourselves up to the danger of being a haven for them.

Dominic Raab: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will not give way, because we have very little time left and the hon. Gentleman took up quite a large amount of time himself.
	I believe that the European arrest warrant is invaluable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) has said, it is invaluable for victims apart from anything else. Without it, ACPO says that
	“It is not just foreign criminals who would sit for years in UK jails. UK court cases would stall for many years as we waited to get our fugitives back, robbing their victims of the chance for justice to be served.”
	Similarly, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred to the case of Hussain Osman, who planted a bomb on 21 July 2005 which, thank God, did not go off. Within eight days he had been arrested, having gone through Paris to Rome, and by September he was back in this country, thanks to the European arrest warrant. Without it, such a process might take up to 10 years in future. That is precisely the kind of thing that we want to avoid.
	We have only to look at the statistics for 2011-12. Sometimes the hon. Member for Esher and Walton—whom I respect enormously in many regards, but not in what he says about this—often suggests that this is all about British citizens being extradited, but the vast majority of people surrendered from and to the UK under the European arrest warrant are not British. In 2011-12, Government statistics show that 922 people were extradited from the UK, just 32 of whom were British nationals. They were not extradited to the kinds of countries referred to by the hon. Gentleman: eight went to Ireland,
	six to the Netherlands and five each to Spain and France. The flow in the other direction was similar: 17 from Ireland and the Netherlands, and 14 from Spain. Of the extraditions, 50 were for homicide, 20 for rape and 90 for robbery. The thought that we might surrender the European arrest warrant and have no sure knowledge of what would stand in its place must be of serious concern to everybody in the country.
	The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), charming though he is, was quite casual about whether there would be an alternative to the European arrest warrant, but all the work of the Lords Committee, the Bar Council and others suggests that we might have to rely on the 1957 convention, which would not solve any single one of the problems with the European arrest warrant that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton referred to. In fact, it would make many of them considerably worse, because it would lead to a longer process and people like Andrew Symeou might end up being imprisoned. Bilateral agreements, for which the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has argued—she is not present, but she leads the charge for many of the more ardent Eurosceptics—would not help either. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said, there is a danger that we will create a new version of the costa del crime in this country.
	There are measures other than the European arrest warrant that we think are vital to our national security. The Schengen information system, the second incarnation of which is not yet fully in place, will mean that every country in the EU will be able to access real-time information on anybody who is of interest to the criminal justice system of any other country at their border and elsewhere. That is an important system and it covers 23 of the measures that we are discussing.
	David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that SO15 considers many of the measures that we are talking about to be essential in tackling terrorism. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned one person who made his concerns about the European arrest warrant known to the Baker review. However, I point out to hon. Members who are deeply troubled by the European arrest warrant that the Baker review said clearly:
	“we believe that the European arrest warrant scheme has worked reasonably well.”

Dominic Raab: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will still not give way to the hon. Gentleman because hon. Members wish to hear from the Minister.
	I will end by making one further point. I know that there are many pragmatic, sensible pro-Europeans on the Government Benches. Sometimes they remind me of Nicodemus in the New Testament, who was only able to visit Jesus at night because he did not want to own up to his Jewish colleagues on the Sanhedrin about his real views. I can see some of those sensible pro-Europeans now and I am tempted to name them—to out them. Of course, there are plenty of Liberal Members who are sometimes sensible. There are also plenty of Conservatives. It is just a shame that they dare not own up to their true views.
	I hope that what comes out of this process is a proper consultation with all the Select Committees and a proper list that does not come out only on the day after the end of May 2014—we know that the Home Secretary is not very good at getting her dates right. I hope that we have a proper process whereby everybody in the House can declare their commitment to the systems that work well in the national interest, and that there is an amendable motion for which all Members can vote.

James Brokenshire: Before I respond to the points that have been made by various Members, it is important in the short time that I have to restate a few simple points to ensure that this debate is understood and placed in its proper context, particularly in the light of the last contribution and some of the other contributions this afternoon and evening.
	First, the decision that the previous Administration left us to make is whether to exercise the opt-out by 31 May 2014. The Opposition motion and a number of the contributions this evening have given the impression that this is a rushed decision. Before coming to a final view on such an important matter, the Government must be satisfied that they have worked through all the options, understood the implications of them, provided Parliament with as much information as is practical and given Members the chance to debate the issues in an informed way. That is the proper way for a Government to conduct business and that is precisely what we are committed to doing.
	Secondly, I remind Members that some 130 measures are subject to this decision, not just the handful named in the Opposition motion. While the Opposition may view those measures as the most important ones that are subject to the decision—although in the light of the contributions this evening, I am not so sure about that—I do not agree that we should single out individual measures when making the large opt-out decision. Instead, we should look at the measures in the round. That is to say, we should consider all 130 or so of them. We must take a decision based purely on what is in the national interest.
	My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have been consistently clear to this House and in evidence to the other place that the Government’s current thinking is that we should opt out of all pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures, but seek to rejoin measures where it is in the national interest to do so. The Government have given a clear commitment, reiterated today by the Home Secretary, to hold a vote on the matter before any formal decision to opt out is made.
	I am proud to be a member of a Government who have done so much to allow Parliament to scrutinise EU matters more fully than ever before, and who are allowing a vote on such an important matter. When such an unambiguous commitment has been made and repeated by the Government, I am not clear what benefit is to be gained by holding a vote on a motion that only partially deals with this matter. Surely it is better to welcome the Government’s commitment to a vote, and for the Government to ensure that any vote takes place in a fully informed manner.
	The decision on exercising the UK’s opt-out will be taken in the national interest. After contributions from hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), let me say clearly that this is not about playing games or not acting responsibly—something the Home Secretary made crystal clear in her contribution this afternoon. Consideration will be given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental effect on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms. That is the correct and measured approach the Government will take.
	Important contributions have been made this afternoon, and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) highlighted the impact of European Court of Justice jurisdiction. Much of the third-pillar legislation was made to the lowest common denominator in order to secure unanimity, and it was not negotiated with European Court of Justice jurisdiction in mind. Much of the drafting reflects that and is not of a high standard. Indeed, some of it is ambiguous and could lend itself to expansive interpretation by the Court—a point effectively made by my hon. Friend. He also referred to the Metock case that highlights the issues involved and why this matter must be considered so carefully.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) highlighted evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers which said that 55 of the measures in the basket have no practical effect, and that is why the evidence presented must be weighed carefully. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) highlighted the balance of competences review, but that is a separate matter concerning modifications to treaties. The issue currently before the House concerns the utilisation of a measure in an existing treaty.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) seemed to imply that there was no room for practical co-operation, but there absolutely is. Much of our co-operation to fight crime and terrorism does not depend on EU-level instruments. Indeed, our operational partners co-operate closely on a daily basis and that will not change. We have been clear throughout this process that where there is a case for practical co-operation with other European partners, the Government will support it.
	Some hon. Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, highlighted Europol. Obviously, the Commission has published a new measure and there will be a separate debate on that at the start of July. Therefore, our decisions on Europol will clearly be framed in the context of the new measure and existing measures that fall within the basket. We also expect the publication of new instruments in relation to Eurojust.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The question is—[Interruption.] I do not think we need any help from you, Mr Browne. Thank you. You are very good at giving advice, but we do not need it.
	Question put forthwith, That the question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 217, Noes 282.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	Question agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that the decision on exercising the UK’s opt out from EU former third pillar measures should be taken in the national interest, with consideration given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms; and welcomes the commitment made by the Minister for Europe on 20 January 2011 to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before the Government makes a formal decision on whether it wishes to opt out.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 2 to 4 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electricity

That the draft Planning Act 2008 (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects) (Electric Lines) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 10 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Licences and Licensing

That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Descriptions of Entertainment) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

National Health Service

That the draft National Health Service (Direct Payments) (Repeal of Pilot Schemes Limitation) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 22 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Carmichael.)
	Question agreed to.

Work Capability Assessments

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Carmichael.)

Sheila Gilmore: Most people here will probably be familiar with the employment and support allowance. Between the introduction of the assessment in October 2008 and February 2012, 1.36 million new claimants were assessed and of those 794,000 were declared fit for work. Of those, 311,900 appealed their decision and 116,400 were successful. That means that nearly one in 10 of all ESA assessments have been overturned. Although the proportion of decisions overturned has started to fall, the overall number remains very high. And those figures do not include all the incapacity benefit claimants currently being migrated to ESA—a process that started last year and is due to be completed in 2014. The cost of appeals is a considerable issue for the Government. This year it is projected to rise to £70 million, up from £50 million.
	I have considered a number of detailed aspects of this issue. In May last year I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the recommendations for new descriptors for mental, intellectual and cognitive conditions that were drawn up by a number of charities. In December last year I secured another debate, in which I highlighted the fact that people are regularly called back for reassessments just months after their previous claim has been granted. Today I want to focus on the provision of audio recording equipment in assessments. I sent the Minister an advance copy of my speech, because this is a serious issue that deserves an attempt to reach a constructive solution. I will spare him the need to spend time telling me that it was my Government who started the employment and support allowance. I know that. It is people’s experience of the system that has shown many of us that it needs substantial reform.
	The assessments carried out by Atos have been much criticised. Assertions have been made about some of the questions asked and the attitude of assessors. For example, I recently met a constituent—by no stretch of the imagination is she a disability activist—who told me that the assessor made a comment about her handbag, saying, “Well I couldn’t afford that, even on my salary.” My constituent tells me it was a present, but she felt the comment was irrelevant and carried the implication that she did not need the benefit. Such assertions are regularly denied by Atos and not accepted by the Department for Work and Pensions. We even have differences of opinion on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, with some members feeling that campaigning organisations exaggerate such claims.
	Audio recording of assessments would allow such disputes to be settled once and for all. Importantly, they would provide new evidence in the event of appeals, but should also improve the quality of assessments, thereby reducing the number of appeals and helping to get things right first time. Assessors would be prompted to ensure that their work was of the highest possible standard—for example, taking more time, asking open as opposed to closed questions, and probing for possible follow-up issues.

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the importance of quality in the work capability assessment. May I
	bring to her attention the situation of my constituent George Rolph, who is currently on the 23rd day of his hunger strike about his treatment at the hands of Atos? When he failed his work capability assessment, he felt he had no choice but to take such drastic action to bring to the Government’s attention the failures of the system.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for giving such a graphic example of the human issues that lie behind what might seem to be quite a dry subject in many respects.
	I was pleased when the year 1 Harrington review recommended that Atos should undertake a pilot to test the hypothesis that audio recording would make a difference.

Jim Shannon: This is a vital issue in my constituency. Every week my office deals with issues arising from the Atos work capability assessment. People who go in for the work capability tribunal test receive no points at all or very few points. The question they ask is: “How can they disregard my health?” Would not the introduction of audio recordings enable my constituents and the hon. Lady’s to have confidence in the system?

Sheila Gilmore: That is exactly the point I am trying to convey. We want to improve the scheme and give people that confidence.
	I was quite interested today to come across an online headline in the Daily Mail that said: “Record your builder to make sure he sticks to his word”. That was the recommendation from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). She was suggesting that that would help to resolve disagreements in those situations.
	The pilot went ahead in Atos’s Newcastle assessment centre between March and May 2011, and an evaluation report was submitted to the DWP on 4 June 2011. In a Westminster Hall debate on 1 February 2012, the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), set out the Government’s position. He said that due to a lack of demand, audio recording would not be rolled out for all assessments. Specifically he said:
	“We decided not to implement universal recording because, based on the trial experience, people did not want it.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 292WH.]
	I am afraid that that assertion is not justified. The Atos pilot concluded that
	“68% of customers agreed to the recording when contacted by telephone prior to the appointment.”
	Due to some claimants not turning up for their assessment, or eventually deciding that they did not want a recording, the figure for those whose assessments were recorded dropped to 46%. That figure is still substantial, however, and the demand for audio recordings is reflected in one of Atos’s key conclusions, which stated:
	“Our recommendation would be that recording should be become routine as it is in a call centre or, for example, NHS Direct.”
	Parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests have yielded another metric to defend the Government’s position—namely, that only 1% of the claimants in the pilot requested a copy of their recording. However, that cannot be regarded as an accurate reflection
	of demand, for two reasons. First, assessors in the pilot used hand-held devices and the recordings had to be transferred to computers and burnt to CDs after the assessments. That meant that claimants could not pick up their recording on the day but had to go to the added effort of making a request in writing. In effect, that required claimants to opt into the pilot and then opt in again to get their recording. We also do not know what the claimants thought the pilot was about. Often, when we phone helplines, we are told on a recorded message that the call will be recorded for staff training purposes. It is possible that the claimants in the pilot were not clear about its purpose.
	Secondly, claimants were told that recordings would be of use to them only in the event of an appeal. Given that the report was completed just days after the pilot concluded, most of those involved would not yet have received a decision on their claim, let alone come to a view on whether they would appeal. Demand for copies might well have been higher had this metric been measured after a longer period. I therefore ask the Minister to accept that the number of claimants in the pilot who requested a copy of their recording is not an accurate reflection of demand, and that the number of people acquiescing to their assessment being recorded is a more appropriate metric to use.
	Turning to what has happened in the two years since the pilot, I want to refer back to the statement given by the previous Minister in Westminster Hall on 1 February 2012. In addition to claiming that there had not been much demand for audio recordings, he said that
	“we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 291WH.]
	In practice, however, it is hard for anyone to have an assessment recorded. The option to request recordings is not mentioned in the official DWP communications to claimants. I was reassured to see that the DWP website was updated last week, on 6 June, and that it now states that the Department and Atos are going to amend written communications. It states:
	“We are working to introduce more widespread information for all claimants as soon as possible.”
	However, it is now two years since the pilot, and the Department is still “working” to have this included in its communications. It does not seem to be too complicated a sentence to include in letters to claimants.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) said in a debate on 4 September that even when requests are made, they are not always met due to a lack of equipment. A freedom of information response from 22 May this year indicated that Atos now has some 50 audio recording machines, but this is inadequate given that over 11,000 assessments are undertaken across the country every week. Another freedom of information request from 23 May suggests that this national roll-out may even be a temporary measure that will end later this year.
	Will the Minister confirm when DWP communications will be able to inform claimants that they can have their assessment recorded? To how many audio recording devices does Atos now have access? Will he confirm whether the recordings currently taking place are part of a wider roll-out that is intended to be permanent or merely a further pilot?
	The report from Professor Harrington in 2010 prompted the Newcastle pilot, and it is worth looking at what he has had to say on this issue since then. In his December 2012 report, which was his third and final one, he said:
	“The pilot of audio recording of assessments has also been subject to much debate…The Review has seen little evidence from the DWP evaluation of the audio recording pilot of 2011 that the universal audio recording of assessments would improve their quality…further monitoring and evaluation work needs to be completed before a decision can be made.”
	The Minister might like to interpret Harrington’s reference to “little evidence” as suggesting that audio recordings make no difference, but I would argue that what he was getting at was the inadequacy of the pilot commissioned and accepted by the DWP, which was why he called for more examination of the issue.
	What the assessors did in this pilot was to take a small number of reports, review them in light of the recordings and conclude that they tallied with each other—that what the written report said and what the recording said were the same. Subsequently, to justify their policy, the main arguments from the Government have both highlighted and ignored the various metrics of demand mentioned in the report. Neither of those approaches answers the key question: do audio recordings improve the quality of assessments?
	Instead, I would contend that the key performance indicator for the work capability assessment should be the proportion of decisions that are subsequently overturned on appeal. A more robust pilot would have involved taking larger samples of both recorded and unrecorded assessments and examining the proportion of successful appeals for both. If they were the same, it would have been fair to conclude the recordings make no difference; but if there were a smaller proportion of successful appeals from those that were recorded, it would be equally fair to conclude that they were worth while.
	We need to be clear, too, whether the current roll-out is actually just another pilot still to be evaluated. If it is to be evaluated, it would be useful to know what is going to be evaluated. This has a relevance beyond the employment and support allowance because the DWP now says that it will make a decision about audio recording of personal independence payment assessments after the evaluation of the ESA experience. That is despite the fact that one of the companies tendering for that PIP assessment, Capita, originally offered to audio record all its assessments. Asking the right questions about what the evaluation is for is crucial.

Nicholas Dakin: Is it not important to test not only the impact on quality but the impact on the confidence of those assessed?

Sheila Gilmore: Indeed. As I think I said earlier, this may well answer some of the issues. If people are anxious about these assessments, their confidence would certainly be improved in this way. If, as some suggest, the assertions made by claimants are exaggerated, that would be established, too, and we would all be happier. We need to know—it is a bit unclear—whether we are going to re-run another pilot, whether what is going on is a pilot and, if so, how it is going to be evaluated.
	In conclusion, I want to raise three sets of questions. First, will the Minister accept on the basis of how the pilot was carried out that requests for copies of audio recordings should not be cited as a reflection of demand, and does he accept that the number of people who want to have their assessment recorded is a more appropriate measurement to use? Secondly, will the Minister tell me exactly what steps are being taken, and how quickly, to inform claimants that their assessments can be recorded? If people do not know that that service is available, they will hardly ask for it. Will the Minister also tell me how many audio recording devices Atos now has access to, and whether there will be a wider, permanent roll-out or merely a further pilot? Finally, will the Minister accept Professor Harrington’s call for more work to be done, so that there can be a proper evaluation?

Mark Hoban: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate. I also thank her for being unusually helpful and supplying a copy of her speech to my office in advance. I hope that that will enable us to engage in a reasoned debate on how we are to introduce the audio recording of work capability assessments. It is important, and we must get it right. It accords firmly with our commitment to improving the WCA process continuously.
	The interest in audio recording that has been expressed in parliamentary questions, freedom of information requests and, indeed, today’s debate demonstrates the importance of this issue. We fully appreciate the benefits of offering audio recording to those who request it as part of their face-to-face assessments, but, while we accept that there has been an increase in demand for its use, we must be sure that we understand the evidence base, including that relating to the value to claimants. Making knee-jerk policy is not an option. The evidence needs to be balanced against potential costs, and that is the process in which my officials are currently engaged. I shall say more about that shortly.
	As the hon. Lady said, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), made a statement on audio recording back in February 2012. He said on that occasion:
	“we will offer everyone who wants it the opportunity to have their session recorded.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2012; Vol. 539, c. 291-2WH.]
	Since then we have striven to honour that commitment, and all those having face-to-face assessments have been able to request that their sessions be recorded.
	The present policy is that claimants can ask for their assessments to be recorded, either by means of the service offered by the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos Healthcare or through the use of their own recording equipment. Requests for an audio recording, whether through the use of Atos Healthcare’s equipment or through the use of equipment provided by a claimant, must be made in advance when a face-to-face assessment is arranged. The purpose of that is to provide adequate notice so that recording equipment can be made available and ready for use.

Martin Horwood: A constituent of mine provided her own equipment for her son’s work capability assessment. One tribunal judged that it was
	admissible while another judged that it was not, because it was not clear that the nurse involved had given consent. Allowing claimants to provide their own equipment leads to complications. It would be much better if the equipment were clearly offered, and, indeed, if its provision became standard.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to how difficult it is for people to provide their own equipment, and to the importance of ensuring that proper controls govern such matters as consent.
	Atos has access to 31 audio recording machines, three of which are currently being repaired. It also has access to 21 cassette machines which are on loan from the DWP. We constantly monitor the updating of audio recording assessments to ensure that the supply of the equipment meets demand.
	Let me put our commitment into more context. Those who want an audio recording can request one, but a claimant has no legal right to an audio-recorded assessment, and neither the DWP nor Atos Healthcare has a legal obligation to provide an audio-recording service or equipment. Our commitment is based on our intention to provide the best possible service for claimants, but the unavailability of audio recording facilities does not mean that the WCA process can be delayed indefinitely. That could slow down the process unnecessarily. Since the introduction of audio recording, only nine requests have been refused owing to the unavailability of equipment.
	As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, Professor Harrington’s first independent review of the WCA recommended that the Atos Healthcare pilot audio recording of assessments should be used to determine whether such an approach is helpful for claimants and improves the quality of assessments. In making that recommendation, Professor Harrington rightly noted the need to balance potential drawbacks such as the increased burdens on tribunals and the sharing of sensitive personal data, with potential improvements in both assessor and claimant behaviours.
	Following that recommendation, the audio pilot took place in the Newcastle assessment centre during spring 2011. The pilot involved 500 claimants being offered the chance to volunteer to have their assessment recorded. The results of the pilot showed that less than half of those offered ended up having an audio recorded assessment and only a handful, less than 1%, requested a copy of their assessment.
	The hon. Lady has raised concerns about the metrics we use when considering demand for audio recording. We feel that the metrics used are key in showing the exact demand during the pilot.

Sheila Gilmore: Perhaps the Minister was about to come to this point, but I am sorry that he has chosen simply to repeat the 1% figure without addressing the criticisms that have been raised—I have heard them from others, too. The context of the pilot made it difficult for people to get a copy and the pilot was then evaluated very quickly.

Mark Hoban: I do not think that it was that difficult to get hold of a copy. The recording might need to be held on a handheld device before it is transferred to a computer and a transcript is printed, but that does not stop
	people asking for a copy. I thought that was one point in the hon. Lady’s thoughtful speech that was not well substantiated.
	The results also provided little evidence that audio recording of face-to-face assessments improved the quality of assessments. There was only limited evidence of improvement in the customer experience for some individuals. Of those who took part, fewer than half the claimants thought that audio recording would be helpful to them. Those are the key areas that Professor Harrington wanted to understand when he called for the original pilot. As a result the Department decided not to introduce audio recording of face-to-face assessments universally on the basis that a facility for all assessments would be extremely costly, with no apparent substantial benefit or improvement in the quality of assessments. We ensured that when claimants asked for an audio recording, we were in a position to provide that facility. That was not intended to provide a permanent solution, but it is important in helping to provide the evidence for further changes.
	Let me say a little about current demand. Since the introduction of a limited audio recording facility in September 2011, fewer than 4,000 claimants have requested a recorded assessment. To date, Atos has conducted more than 2,000 audio-recorded assessments. During that period almost 1.5 million face-to-face assessments for both ESA and incapacity benefit reassessments have been completed. Therefore, the proportion of recorded assessments is less than 0.2% of all assessments carried out during the period. We need to continue to monitor that take-up, but universal recording for such low numbers does not seem prudent and might not provide value for money.
	We have always been clear that the provision of a limited audio recording service is a temporary measure that needs to be evaluated fully before a final decision is taken on the future of the service. As I have already said, we need the evidence to show that investing potentially large sums of money into the provision of universal recording will improve quality and will be used by claimants.
	We agree with the comments in Professor Harrington’s third report in which he expressed views about audio recording needing to improve the quality of assessments. He said that
	“further monitoring and evaluation work needs to be completed before a decision can be made”.
	That is why we have decided to extend the evaluation period until the end of the summer to allow us to gather additional data on quality and potential take-up for a subsequent robust decision on any potential future audio-recording provision. We now have a benchmark for current take-up but, as has been rightly pointed out, we cannot get a true comparison until we routinely let people know about its availability. I am pleased to say that we are therefore taking steps to boost awareness of audio recording.
	The Department and Atos are in the process of amending written communications to claimants by updating the WCA AL1C form. The document is sent to claimants when they need to arrange a face-to-face assessment and will provide more information on how to arrange an audio-recorded assessment. We expect the revised form to be sent out to claimants by the end of next month, once the necessary changes have been made and the form has been cleared for use.

Sheila Gilmore: Perhaps the Minister might be able to explain why it has taken nearly two years to make that amendment. If I understood him correctly, he said that the evaluation of all this process was being extended to the end of the summer, so if the revised letter is not going out until the end of this month or the end of next month, there will be very little time to judge whether that has made any difference.

Mark Hoban: The volume of people going through the WCA on a monthly basis is significant—I believe that 100,000 claims are made for ESA every month—so it will not take long to find out the take-up rate, although we need to make sure that the pilot has the right amount of time to gather sufficient evidence. Earlier the hon. Lady was arguing in favour of a shorter pilot and now she is potentially arguing for a longer pilot in order to get the evaluation right, but she makes an important point.
	In addition to the letter I mentioned, the Department has recently provided more information about the audio-recording facility on the “Inside Government” section of the gov.uk website. By ensuring that more people are aware of the facility we will get a much better picture of how many people are applying for an audio recording and a better assessment of the level of demand. The hon. Lady rightly made the point that we do need to understand what the demand actually is.
	In the past, the Department has asked Atos Healthcare to apply a processing safeguard whereby requests for audio-recorded assessments should be accommodated within four weeks, and where that was not possible, the assessment should go ahead without a recording. However, during the remainder of the evaluation period, to help
	ensure that claimant expectation can be met, the four-week safeguard for requesting audio-recorded assessments has been removed. That will enable us to gather a fuller picture of demand and capacity, in order to inform a full and robust evaluation.
	To conclude, we are continuing to evaluate the costs and benefits of the current approach, and will await the results of a further evaluation during the summer before making a further decision on the future of this service and how it can improve the WCA.

Heidi Alexander: rose—

Mark Hoban: I just want to finish these remarks.
	Although I acknowledge the increase in audio recording and potentially the recommendation of Professor Harrington on this matter, we also need properly to evaluate the cost and benefits of the extension of recording. We are doing just that. By raising awareness of the service we will be able to gauge demand, assess usage of the recordings by claimants and tribunals—it is important to understand where tribunals want to see transcripts of recordings—and evaluate the wider impact on quality.
	As a word of caution, I say that the original evaluation demonstrates a reasonable level of interest from claimants but a low level of take-up of the actual recordings and no impact on quality. I am determined, as I have made clear in debates in this House since I took on this role, to improve the WCA, but I am prepared to do so only where the benefits are demonstrable.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Tribunals and Inquiries

That the draft Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 24 April 2013, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 272, Noes 209.

Question accordingly agreed to.